The Court said that it needs to see the case files from the stage before AAP leader Manish Sisodia was arrested and the case file after he was arrested.

"We want to see the file before Manish Sisodia was arrested and after Sisodia was arrested. Do you produce the case file before the magistrate? Do you take all the files ? You also produce the case as before Kejriwal was arrested," the Bench said.

Pertinently, the Court said that it will examine whether Section 19 of the PMLA was complied with while arresting Kejriwal.

Section 19 empowers ED to arrest a person if they have sufficient material to suspect that the concerned person is guilty of the offence of money laundering under PMLA.

"The issue before us is very limited and it is compliance with Section 19 and we need to see what is the nature of enquiry and reasons to be recorded. And we need to see what happened to the investigation from one stage to the other stage and for an investigating agency to take two years for this is not good. We need to see whether section 19 compliance is done or not," the Court made it clear.

"We have proof that hotel expenses of Arvind Kejriwal during Goa elections. It was a 7-star hotel. Grand Hyatt in Goa and the bill was paid by chariot enterprises and we have documentary evidence to that effect," the ASG said.

The ASG reiterated during the initial stages of the probe, Kejriwal was not being investigated.

"We can show that Kejriwal demanded ₹100 crores. At the nascent stage, Kejriwal was not the focus and investigating agency was not looking at that. The role became clearer only when the investigation progressed," Raju contended.

"When was the first question put with regard to Arvind Kejriwal," the Court queried.

"It was in the statement of Buchi Babu (former auditor of BRS leader K Kavitha). The statement of Buchi Babu was taken on February 23, 2023" the ASG replied.

"In this case you have to be front footed. You have acted under Section 19. You are saying non relevance on the material relied on by the petitioners have no consequence," the Court remarked.

The ASG said that one of the witnesses had said he had met Kejriwal for a land deal but the ED later came to know that the statement was bogus and the real purpose of the meeting was in relation to the ₹100 crores.

The Court, however, said that it was not relevant at this stage. It further underlined that the grounds of arrest and the reasons to believe the involvement of the arrested person have to be one and the same.

"We need not to go into all of that It is not relevant. We need to see if this is given in reasons to believe under Section 19 PMLA," Bench remarked.

"But the grounds of arrest are different," the ASG said.

"No Mr Raju. Grounds of arrest and reasons to believe have to be same. Reasons to believe has to be far more elaborate than the grounds of arrest. You have to struggle on that a bit," the Court replied.

The ASG argued that statements given by an arrested person to an agency is admissible as evidence if they are not in the nature of confession. In this case, since the statement by the arrested person is that he gave bribe (to AAP/ Kejriwal), the same is admissible, it was contended.

"When a person is arrested his statement is recorded after arrest. Non- confessional statement is admissible and confessional statement is not admissible. So when he says that he gave a bribe to someone, it is not against him and so it is admissible," the ASG submitted.

But the Court said that it will have to examine the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act for the same which was not necessary at this stage.

"This argument is debatable. We have to read section 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. We will not go into that now," the Court remarked.

It said that at this juncture, it was interested in the statements of witnesses which implicates Kejriwal.

"Give us the statements on a piece of paper which implicates Kejriwal," the Court remarked.

Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh resigns