Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court has granted the Enforcement Directorate (ED) a 24-hour transit remand of AAP leader Deepak Singla, directing that he be presented before a court in Panchkula, Haryana, by 2 PM on Tuesday.
Singla was arrested in connection with an alleged money laundering case involving Rs 195 crore linked to a bank fraud, which is currently under consideration in the Panchkula court. Special Judge (CBI) Sushant Changotra authorised the transit remand on Monday after hearing the ED’s request.
During the proceedings, the ED’s counsel stated that Singla was arrested following a search operation in which unaccounted cash was seized. They further asserted that the case names Ashok Kumar Mittal as the principal accused and includes Raman Singla, Deepak Singla’s brother, as a co-accused. The ED alleged that the accused firms, directed by Singla, siphoned off the criminal proceeds, totalling Rs 195 crore, of which Rs 155 crore pertains to bank fraud. The agency claimed Rs 143 crore remains to be recovered, with funds flowing from Ashok Mittal to Deepak Singla.
The counsel informed the court that investigations by both the CBI and ED are complete, chargesheets have been filed, and the case is at the evidence-gathering stage. The ED argued that transit remand was necessary to present Singla before the Panchkula court.
Defence advocates Rajat Bhardwaj, Karan Sharma and Mohd Irshad appeared for Deepak Singla and opposed the remand. Advocate Bhardwaj challenged the timing and necessity of the arrest, questioning, “Why arrest today? Necessity for arrest today?” He also queried why Singla had not been produced earlier in Panchkula.
Bhardwaj highlighted that the CBI FIR was filed in May 2018 and the ED’s ECIR in September 2019, with investigations completed and chargesheet submitted. He emphasised that prior permission is required for arrest in concluded investigations and described the arrest as illegal given that the transactions date back to 2015 and 2016.
The defence further noted that the principal accused was granted bail in 2023 and questioned why Singla’s name had surfaced after four years, calling it a “clear-cut misrepresentation before the court.” They argued that if Singla were to be an accused, this should have occurred in 2022, and that his role was already discussed in the ECIR. They noted cash had been seized in 2015 during the fraud case and that Singla was not named in the FIR or chargesheet.
The defence counsel questioned the connection of the cash recovered during the recent search to the ongoing case and stated that Singla had remained available throughout. They characterised the search as illegal and asked what new evidence had emerged in this bank fraud case.
The ED counsel stated that Rs 43 crore remain to be recovered. When the court asked the investigating officer to produce the case file, it was absent as the documents were in Chandigarh, comprising thousands of pages.
The judge remarked that remand could not be granted without reviewing the case documents, stating, “I am not a post officer.” Bhardwaj contended that there was nothing substantial to present and questioned the validity of the search without access to the case diary.
The court requested the ED to cite any precedent allowing transit remand without reviewing the case diary. Bhardwaj reiterated that this is why the ED presented the accused before the current court, while the Panchkula court held all relevant material and facts.