ED seeks custodial interrogation of Priyanka Gandhi’s husband Robert Vadra

ED’s advocate DP Singh argued that the trial court has not considered certain facts and the plea for anticipatory bail was also moved while Vadra was abroad. The ED argued that Vadra had been evasive and non-cooperative while the lawyer for Vadra denied the allegations insisting that he had voluntarily joined the investigation.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday sought the custodial interrogation of Priyanka Gandhi’s husband Robert Vadra from the Delhi High Court. The ED has opposed the anticipatory bail plea of Vadra in a money laundering case. The next date of hearing is November 5.
ED’s advocate DP Singh argued that the trial court has not considered certain facts and the plea for anticipatory bail was also moved while Vadra was abroad. The ED argued that Vadra had been evasive and non-cooperative while the lawyer for Vadra denied the allegations insisting that he had voluntarily joined the investigation.
The ED had approached the Delhi High Court against the anticipatory bail granted to Vadra by the lower court.
Earlier during the last hearing, Vadra had replied to ED’s plea stating that the agency had conducted fishing and roving enquiry and that it had no material to support the allegations made against him.
Vadra had also denied any kind of flight risk or tampering with evidence. He has said that the documents have been seized by the ED and there is no allegation of any tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
He had insisted in his reply that as far as flight risk was concerned, he had returned to India from abroad voluntarily upon reading reports that ED was investigating him. He further insisted that he volunteered to appear before the ED even before he received the summons and had been cooperative.
Vadra had said in his reply that he has “no properties outside India”, nor does he have “any beneficial ownership of any property outside India”. He has never received any ‘kickback’ for any ‘deal’ and any allegations of this nature are completely false,” he added. He had insisted that the “sole purpose of the agency is to cause prejudice in the mind of the court and the public” against him.