While explaining that Section 167(2) of CrPC authorizes the detention of an arrestee beyond 24 hours and empowers the Magistrate to remand an accused to police custody, though not exceeding the period of 15 days, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) member Sanjay Singh challenging his arrest and remand in the alleged Delhi liquor scam case.

Noting that the statement of the approver and other witnesses specifically point out the role played by the accused in receipt of money and the purpose of the same i.e. for funding the elections which were to be held in Goa and for the party funding of AAP, the High Court observed that the grounds of arrest and the remand application categorically mention that the petitioner had received Rs. two crores from the co-accused persons, in conspiracy with other persons, and had played an active role in generation, transfer, and concealment of the proceeds of crime.

The High Court held so while considering a petition by a member of the Rajya Sabha from the State of NCT of Delhi, and a senior member of the Aam Aadmi Party, who had expressed his grievance that his arrest was an example of abuse of power and malice, and who had argued that there was no evidence of money laundering or any recovered money, yet he had been taken into custody.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that “If an accused is permitted to allege malice on the part of the complainant who initiated the case against them, it could result in the complainant themselves becoming victims of facing charges of malicious prosecution. This could potentially divert the focus from addressing their grievances and from carrying out investigation against an accused. As the proper stage for addressing malicious prosecution claims is during the appropriate stage of the trial, this current stage, which concerns the remand order, does not warrant any intervention from this Court”.

The Bench further added that “The Courts hold the responsibility of upholding not only the rights of the accused but also the interests of the State. While investigating a case, the State acts as the guardian of its citizens, seeking to ensure their safety and well-being. When allegations of activities like money laundering, potentially linked with political gains or party funding are alleged, it becomes an obligation of the State to ascertain the veracity of these claims. The citizens of the State have a legitimate right to know the truth in such matters. This truth, however, can only be unearthed through a thorough and unbiased investigative process”.

The Bench therefore concluded that the investigative agency had sufficient material in their possession to arrest the present accused to produce him before the Sessions Court for seeking his custodial interrogation.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary appeared for the Petitioner, whereas ASG S.V. Raju appeared for the Respondent.

As per the brief facts, the role attributed to the petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was that he played a significant role in the Delhi Liquor Scam and had close connections with various individuals involved in the case, including Dinesh Arora and Amit Arora. It was alleged that the petitioner had benefited from illicit funds or advance kickbacks, which constituted proceeds of crime derived from the liquor policy scam for the year 2021-22. These proceeds of crime were allegedly generated, transferred, and concealed by the petitioner, amounting to Rs. 2 crores. Furthermore, the petitioner was accused of actively participating in a conspiracy related to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy Scam, as described in the statement of the approver and witnesses.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that the grounds of arrest and the remand application clearly stated that the petitioner had received Rs. two crores from the co-accused individuals in conspiracy with others and had played an active role in generating, transferring, and concealing the proceeds of crime.

However, the Bench pointed out that it would be during further investigation that the money trail, including how the money exchanged hands and for what purpose it was taken, would become evident.

The Bench observed that the accused in this case was an influential individual and he had the support of capable lawyers and had sent a defamation legal notice to investigating agency, asserting that he was being falsely implicated based on the false statement of a co-accused.

However, the Bench emphasized that the investigating agency had a duty to carry out its work in accordance with the law, even if it proved uncomfortable or inconvenient for any accused person. Investigations must proceed in accordance with the law, and it is a challenging task for investigating agencies when they are also burdened with defamation notices simply for performing their investigative duties.

The Bench further elaborated that it is rarely expected for an accused person to willingly confess to their crime. Additionally, to establish malice on the part of an individual, there must be specific allegations and reasons provided. In the present case, no specific allegations, or reasons for attributing malice to the Directorate of Enforcement had been presented.

The Bench therefore emphasized that to use malice as a ground for releasing an accused of their alleged offenses, especially at a stage when the investigation is in its early phases and there is prima facie evidence against the accused, would run counter to principles of criminal jurisprudence.

The Bench also noted that a serious question had been raised during arguments, alleging that the confession of the approver was obtained under pressure and was patently false, with the intention of framing the present accused individuals.

However, the Bench clarified that the determination of whether the statement was extracted under pressure or without procedural due process or constituted an abuse of power could not be made at this stage.

In the present case, the Bench found nothing to suggest that the law enforcement agency had used unlawful means to extract a false statement from the approver to achieve a predetermined outcome.

“When allegations of activities like money laundering, potentially linked with political gains or party funding are alleged, it becomes an obligation of the State to ascertain the veracity of these claims. The citizens of the State have a legitimate right to know the truth in such matters,” added the Bench.

The Bench also remarked that an individual has the right to protect their individual public image and the reputational aspect of their human dignity. However, this right to protect one's image and reputation should not hinder or curtail the state's right to investigate any crime against that individual.

Lastly, observing that there are no distinctions between political or apolitical cases or individuals when it comes to the application of the law, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Sanjay Singh v. Union of India and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 7741]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment


Delhi High CourtJustice Swarana Kanta SharmaPrevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)

Pankaj Bajpai