Discontent with the High Court's decision, Kejriwal sought redress in the Supreme Court, challenging the ruling delivered by a bench headed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The apex court is currently deliberating on Kejriwal's plea.
In a recent development, the judicial custody of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the money laundering case linked to the liquor policy scam has been extended until May 20, following an order by Special Judge Kaveri Baweja of Rouse Avenue Courts.
Arvind Kejriwal's detention comes as a result of the expiry of his previous judicial custody in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case. The extension was granted during proceedings that was held on Tuesday.
Supreme Court reserves order on Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's interim bail in Excise Policy case
Meanwhile, the top court reserved its order on Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the ED in the money laundering case linked to liquor scam. The Supreme Court heard arguments from ASG SV Raju and SG Tushar Mehta earlier in the day and issued a ruling on the matter.
The dismissal of Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest on April 10 further compounded his legal predicament. The court observed that the ED had presented sufficient evidence, including statements from witnesses and AAP representatives, implicating Kejriwal in financial irregularities related to the Goa elections.
Discontent with the High Court's decision, Kejriwal sought redress in the Supreme Court, challenging the ruling delivered by a bench headed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. The apex court is currently deliberating on Kejriwal's plea.
The money laundering case has also ensnared other prominent AAP figures, including Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh. While Sisodia remains incarcerated, Singh was recently granted bail by the Supreme Court, following concessions made by the ED.
Central to the ED's case is the assertion that Kejriwal played a key role in orchestrating the Delhi excise scam, allegedly involving proceeds exceeding Rs 100 crores. The agency contended that the excise policy was manipulated to confer disproportionate benefits on select private entities, contrary to the official record of Group of Ministers (GoM) meetings.