High Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing for Enforcement Directorate's (ED) petition seeking to quash Robert Vadra's bail for November 25.
Justice Chander Shekhar is hearing the ED petition and the final arguments are slated to be held on November 25.
In September, the Delhi High Court had posted November 5 as the date for hearing in the matter after hearing arguments from ED advocate DP Singh.
Singh stated that the trial court had not considered certain facts and termed Vadra "evasive and non-cooperative" and had "money chain that directly links to him", demanding his custody on behalf of the investigation agency.
Vadra's lawyer denied the allegations levied on his client and stated that the businessman had voluntarily joined the investigation process.
The Delhi HC is hearing the plea of ED challenging the trial court order which had granted anticipatory bail to Robert Vadra and his close aide Manoj Arora in an alleged money laundering case.
On April 1, the trial court had granted anticipatory bail to Vadra and Arora while directing them to furnish a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh each and surety of the same amount.
In the reply filed by Vadra in response to the ED's plea, he had denied all the allegations made by ED and stated that the investigation agency has no material to support the allegations made against him.
In response to the allegations of flight risk, Vadra had stated that he returned to India from abroad voluntarily upon reading media reports that ED was investigating him which made it abundantly clear that he had no intention of fleeing the country and was determined to stay in India and clear the name.
Vadra alleged that the sole purpose of the agency is to cause prejudice in the mind of court and the public against him.
Earlier, ED had approached the Delhi HC and stated that "The respondent (Vadra) is likely to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses in the case. The special judge (trial court) has failed to appreciate that the respondent is a highly influential person. If he is granted blanket protection of bail, there is all likelihood that the respondent shall tamper with evidence."
The case relates to alleged money laundering in the purchase of a London-based property worth 1.9 million pounds. The ED contended that the anticipatory bail to Vadra and Arora "interferes" in the investigation into the case.
( With inputs from ANI )