"ED summons are illegal, Court will decide that now": AAP legal head Sanjeev Nasiar
Mar 16, 2024
New Delhi [India], March 16 : After a court in New Delhi granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday, Aam Aadmi Party legal head Sanjeev Nasiar said that the party's stand is clear that ED's summons are illegal and it is up to the court to decide that.
"The court had summoned CM (Arvind Kejriwal). The last time he attended it through video conferencing when he was directed again he said that he would appear physically. He appeared today and submitted the bail bond. The bail was granted," he said.
The Rouse Avenue Court granted Kejriwal bail in both the complaints of the Enforcement Directorate today.
"Regarding the ED summons our stand is clear that they are not as per law and are illegal. The court will decide that now. We have full faith in the court. Whatever decision the court takes our decision will be according to that," Sanjeev Nasiar added.
Delhi Government advisor Reena Gupta claimed it a "political vendetta" and called the case "baseless".
Speaking to ANI, she said, "Thousands of people were interrogated; raids were conducted at various places but no evidence has been found. Today, the big issue facing the country is that of electoral bonds. How has the BJP used ED and CBI? Now more ED cases will be registered to divert the country's attention from electoral bonds. CM has always asked the ED that you tell me why I am being summoned but they never replied."
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Divya Malhotra granted bail to the Delhi CM.
Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's lawyers said that only a personal bail bond of Rs 15000 was asked to be furnished by the court; no surety of Rs one lakh was asked.
Kejriwal appeared before the court following a summons issued to him by the court based on two ED complaints in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case.
The Rouse Avenue Court on Friday reserved an order on the stay of summons issued to Kejriwal on complaints filed by the ED.
Kejriwal had challenged the summons issued by the court after taking cognizance of two complaints filed by the ED for avoidance of the summons issued to him.
