A trial court in Delhi is hearing two cases concerning the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the Delhi excise policy case.

Kejriwal was arrested on accusations of being part of a conspiracy to launder money allegedly received as kickbacks in exchange for intentionally leaving behind loopholes in the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy of 2021-22.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has alleged that these loopholes were meant to benefit certain liquor sellers and that the bribes received were allegedly used to fund the AAP's election campaign in Goa.

Kejriwal has denied the allegations and counter-accused the ED of running an extortion racket.

Today, the Rouse Avenue court will hear Kejriwal's bail plea as well as his application to allow his wife, Sunita Agarwal, to join through video conference when Arvind Kejriwal is medically examined to assess his health.

Track this page for live updates from the hearing today.

Matter taken up. Judge Nyaya Bindu hearing matter.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari appears for Arvind Kejriwal.

Chaudhari informs the Court that Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest and remand is before the Supreme Court and the apex court has reserved its verdict on the plea.

Chaudhari: The Supreme Court passed two orders. On May 10, 2024, it granted me interim bail, and on 17 May, the SC said that I can apply for regular bail.

Chaudhari takes the Court through the May 10 order of Supreme Court, granting interim bail to Kejriwal.

Chaudhari: The Supreme Court was confronted with a position as to whether a national party leader should be let out for a few days to campaign in the elections. The observations made in that regard may have some bearing when this court decides on his bail application.

Chaudhari is now referring to a list of dates.

Chaudhari: 17 August 2022 is the CBI FIR. August 22 comes the ED's ECIR. Several chargesheets were filed; in none of them was I made an accused. Till today, I am not an accused in the CBI case.

Chaudhari: The first summon in PMLA case is issued to me to appear on 2 November. I filed my reply. I asked them how are you calling me? Am I a witness or suspect? I ask them if I am being summoned in my individual capacity or as the CM or as convenor of AAP?

Chaudhari: The next summon to me is one and half months later. I am not claiming any special status but let's not forget that a constitutional functionary is being called. At least the chair is to be respected. When a CM writes that 'I am being called in person and it impinges on my official duties are being affected ...'

Chaudhari: I ask them if they have any questionnaire they can send to me. In January 2024 they send me the fourth summon. This summon is accompanied by an email. It says I am being called in my official capacity and I am not an accused.

Chaudhari: Please now come to March 16, 2024. General elections are announced. On the same day, they issue me summons. I approach High Court on March 19 challenging these summons. High Court issues notice and seeks reply in three weeks.

Chaudhari: On March 21, the stay application comes up before the HC, the HC denies any interim relief but issues notice. This happens at around noon but on the same day around 5 PM, after sunset they (ED) enter my house and arrest me.

Chaudhari: I challenged my arrest, HC rejected it and SC has reserved its verdict. I was granted interim bail by SC; I sought an extension which was denied by the SC. I came here to get the interim bail and that has been rejected as well.

Chaudhari: On all aspects of Section 19, PMLA, etc., I am not going to bother this court because that is before the Supreme Court.

Chaudhari: Even in ED cases, the bail is the rule

Chaudhari: The entire case against me is based on the statements of people who are not only tainted but it appears that they were arrested and given promise of bail. They were promised pardon. They are no saints. These people were lured. There is a question on the credibility of these people.

Chaudhari: Please go to the timing. This entire case started in August 2022. I am arrested in March 2024.

Chaudhari: Most of the statements were available to them much before that. the last statement recorded by them is August 2023. They are on record saying I am not an accused and that I am being summoned in my personal capacity. When they arrest me, they mention my role as CM and convenor of AAP.

Chaudhari: They waited for the bugle of elections to be blown to arrest me. There were two or three ideas behind it. The malice in law is writ large. There is a malice behind the timing of the arrest as well

Chaudhari: The ED's conduct is deplorable.

Chaudhari: The accusations are dubious.

Chaudhari: If they can do this to a constitutional functionary, what will happen to an ordinary man?

Chaudhari: Whatever accusations they are levelling is like they are prosecuting me in the CBI case, not PMLA. They are harping on my conduct, if my conduct is bad it is to be determined by the CBI. ED can only probe my role in money laundering.

Chaudhari refers to judgements.

Chaudhari: They cannot arrogate powers to investigate the CBI case

Chaudhari: These statements against me are of questionable veracity and lack material corroboration.

Chaudhari: The statements were made after they were arrested by the ED and after they failed to get bail. The ED bartered their personal liberty for statements.

Chaudhari: When I say these people did not name me, they say that's because they weren't asked about me - is this how the statement is recorded?

Chaudhari refers to statement of Magunta Reddy (accused turned approver in the excise policy case).

Chaudhari: He was asked specifically about me; he says he did not meet me in connection with excise policy. Later he makes a statement regarding me, his son then gets interim bail. Later he is granted pardon as well.

Chaudhari: Magunta Reddy contests elections on TDP ticket and is now part of the ruling NDA alliance

Chaudhari refers to Sarath Reddy's (approver) statement.

Chaudhari: He is also granted bail on grounds of back pain. Why this barter of liberty?

Chaudhari: Please see his (approver Sarath Reddy's) flip flops. He made 11 statements post his arrest with no allegation against me. Subsequently, he was granted interim bail on 5 April and later ... he starts making incriminating statements against me.

Chaudhari: Sarath Reddy's (approver) company purchased electoral bond worth ₹50 crore for the ruling party.

Chaudhari: These approver statements, if at all they can be called evidence, they are weak evidence. It is my case that they are all false.

Chaudhari: ED thinks under Section 50, PMLA everything is admissible... But look at the veracity of the statements. There is no money trail.

Chaudhari: There is no corroborative evidence to show that money came from South group.

Chaudhari: There is no camera recording or money as such which has been exchanged. These are all in the form of statements. I will not be surprised if some more statements come to fill in lacunae. This investigation is unending, it will continue till eternity. It is the biggest instrument of oppression

Chaudhari: They say because Vijay Nair was occupying a guest room in a house allotted to a minister, he had access to me. They say the house was in close proximity. The LG's house was closer to Vijay Nair than mine.

Chaudhari: The ED's reply shows that they are probing the predicate offence. They are probing my role, my conduct. It is not ED's job.

Chaudhari: The triple test in my case is satisfied. I was granted bail, I satisfied that test and I surrendered.

Chaudhari: The question is, how will my lord view the arrest of a sitting CM in a case which was going on for a year-and-half before the arrest? Please see that the arrest was when the election was announced. Please also keep in mind the evidence that is against me. These statements are by tainted people.

Chaudhari: I am also suffering from a host of ailments. I am covered under proviso to Section 45 PMLA. I am not seeking interim bail today. But please consider the ailments I am suffering from.

Chaudhari is now arguing on the application to allow Kejriwal's wife Sunita Kejriwal to be present as an attendant when he is examined by the medical board.

Chaudhari: The accused is in my lord's custody. They (ED) have no role.

Court: ED has anything to say on this?

Chaudhari: They are strongly opposed to it. If Mr Kejriwal asks for even a glass of water, they will oppose it. Is it prosecution or persecution?

Chaudhari concludes. ASG SV Raju begins his submissions for the ED.

Court: Please be brief, sir.

Court: Please only address on the issues raised by the counsel for applicant.

ASG: Mr Kejriwal has not been summoned as yet as an accused in the case but prosecution complaint has been filed in the case.

ASG: As far as the offence of money laundering is concerned, cognisance of the offence has been taken.

ASG: There is a judgement of the Supreme Court that says if the cognisance of an offence is taken, it means, prima facie, there is an offence.

ASG: The offence of money laundering has taken place. Cognisance has been taken by competent court and it has not been challenged. The issue is now only his (Kejriwal's) role.

ASG: Your lordship is aware of the rigorous of Section 45 PMLA.

ASG: In this case, AAP has been made accused. There are a number of accused for which bail has been rejected. It means that the court has come the conclusion that there is an offence of money laundering.

ASG: He (Kejriwal) may not be an accused in the CBI offence but he can still be an accused in the PMLA case.

ASG: He asked for funds for the AAP. It is the CBI's case that Arvind Kejriwal demanded bribe.

ASG: CBI investigation shows that Kejriwal asked for a bribe of ₹100 crores.

Court: I want to know if the cognisance has been taken, what is the exact language used by the court while summoning Arvind Kejriwal.

ASG: It has been kept for order.

Court: I want a copy of the order to see the exact language.

Court: Sir, I want you to address me on the issues raised by them. They have said he was not named in the original case. They say that there are only approver statements and that these statements are not believable. They have also said that he is a constitutional functionary and not a habitual offender.

ASG: I will first refer to the antecedents. The lack of antecedents cannot be a ground for grant of bail. The ground is only that he is not guilty of offence punishable under PMLA. Please look at Section 45 PMLA. It does not say anything about antecedents or that because someone holds a constitutional post, he can be granted bail.

ASG: The court has to be satisfied that the person is not guilty of the offence. He doesn't demonstrate that. He says he does not have any antecedents, that is irrelevant. He must show that he is not guilty of the offence. Therefore, he has not been able to do that. He says I am not there in corruption offence, but that is not relevant. The Supreme Court has said that you may not be an accused in the predicate offence but you can still be an accused in the PMLA case.

ASG: The further investigation by CBI has revealed his role. So his assertion that he has no role in the predicate offence is false.

ASG: He says that the statements are not credible. The credibility of the statements can only be considered at the stage of trial. It cannot be looked into at the stage of bail. At bail stage, a mini-trial cannot be held.

ASG: He says he could have been arrested earlier if material existed against him. But the timing is immaterial.

ASG: When and where to arrest a person is the prerogative of the investigating officer. Timing is immaterial under Section 45. The Section will become redundant if this proposition is accepted.

ASG: We collected evidence prior to his arrest as well. They are questioning the timing of the arrest and said after July 2023, there was nothing against them. They say Kejriwal was arrested to prevent him from campaigning in elections, the Supreme Court has taken care of that.

ASG: The SC ordered his release only for elections ... SC says he cannot attend his office or go to his secretariat. If the SC felt he is not guilty of this offence, why did it impose these conditions? ... They knew the tenor of the SC order and that is why they moved interim bail on different grounds. They sought interim bail on medical grounds.

ASG: This was no regular interim bail. It was only for the purpose of election. This order cannot be relied upon for regular bail here ... SC has said its order is not an opinion on merits. How can he be permitted to argue that here?

Court says it will reassemble after 10 minutes.

Judge Bindu presides. ASG begins his submissions.

ASG refers to Delhi High Court order rejecting Kejriwal's challenging to his arrest and remand in the case.

ASG: In a case when the prosecution finds it difficult to get the evidence, approvers are made. The law recognises approvers and law says they can be given inducements. The entire purpose of making approver is giving inducements. You are given a carrot... It is the law. ... Giving pardon is an inducement but that is the law of the approver. An approver cannot be discredited because he has been given an inducement.

ASG: It is the court that grants pardon, not the prosecution.

Hearing to continue after lunch.

Court: I request you to be brief so that I can go through all the documents and pass the order.

Court reassembles.

Arvind Kejriwal produced before the Court through video conference. Kejriwal's custody ends today.

Court: Mr. Kejriwal, do you want to anything to the Court?

Kejriwal: No ma'am, my lawyers are there. They will address the Court.

Adv Vivek Jain addresses the Court on behalf of Kejriwal.

Jain: Their application is bereft of any merit. Even they are saying that the investigation is not complete.

Court extends Kejriwal's judicial custody till July 3.

Arguments on bail hearing start.

Court again requests the ASG to be brief. ASG says he will file written submissions.

Court: That means all the arguments made till now will be worthless.

Court: You have argued at length, if you need 10-15 more minutes, I can give.

ASG says he will need 30 more mintues.

Court: I will not reserve order. Everyone knows it is a high-profile matter. I will pass the order after hearing it. I will not reserve the order.

ASG continues arguing.

ASG: Kejriwal is responsible not only in his personal capacity but even vicariously....He demanded a bribe of ₹100 crore, how can you say he is not prima facie guilty of the offence?

ASG: Vijay Nair was media in-charge of AAP. He was holding meeting for bribes. He was the one who said you give us bribe, we will change the policy. He was living in the government bungalow. He had no business to be there. He was living there just to be close to Kejriwal.

ASG says these are findings of the Delhi High Court.

ASG: AAP is an association of individuals... If AAP has taken a bribe of ₹100 crore then every person in-charge of AAP is liable to be punished for the offence. It is as per Section 70 of the PMLA. Bribe was taken by AAP, AAP has been made accused in the case.

ASG: Please see the Manish Sisodia order. When he was made accused, AAP was not an accused. So the Supreme Court asked 'if AAP is not an accused how can Manish Sisodia be an accused?' We have said the money was sent through hawala to be used by AAP.

ASG: Arvind Kejriwal is responsible for the conduct of AAP. He is the national convenor of the party. Therefore, he is the in-charge of the party.

The demand of ₹100 core bribe is established. We have established that money went through hawala. The person Chanpreet Singh (co-accused who took the money) has established it. Large chunk of money was paid to AAP in cash is also established. Money was paid for 7-star hotel stay of Kejriwal by Chanpreet Singh also established.

Court defers the hearing to tomorrow.

Judge: I have to pass some (other) orders and give dasti copies.