Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal strongly opposes the ED’s plea to revoke his bail in the Excise Policy money laundering case, arguing against overturning discretionary bail orders based on prosecution’s perceptions. His 130-page reply to the Delhi HC counters ED’s claims of irrelevant materials influencing court proceedings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has firmly opposed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) plea challenging the trial court’s decision to grant him bail in the Excise Policy money laundering case. Kejriwal contends that discretionary bail orders cannot be overturned merely based on the prosecution’s perceptions and speculative assertions.
In a detailed 130-page reply submitted to the Delhi High Court, Kejriwal addressed the ED’s argument that “irrelevant materials have been considered” by stating that such claims not only attempt to dictate the Court’s proceedings but also –
“show signs of arrogance that have developed within this specific investigating agency.”
Kejriwal further criticized the ED for presenting media reports during the hearing on the stay application. He pointed out the inconsistency in the ED’s approach, noting that in other cases, the agency has objected to media reports being relied upon.
During the hearing on the stay application, ED chose to produce media reporting before this Hon’ble Court regarding the proceedings which had occurred before the Special Court during the hearing of the bail application. Significantly, the ED adopts varying and contradictory standards as per its convenience. In other cases where such proceedings reported in media were brought before the Court, it has been a vehement objection of the ED that the same cannot be relied upon.
Kejriwal also emphasized that the ED’s insinuations against Special Judge (PC Act) Niyay Bindu, who granted him bail, are highly inappropriate.
He argued-
“The language used by the ED in its submissions to the Hon’ble Court regarding the Ld. Special Judge should be disapproved. Such remarks and insinuations are not only harmful to justice but also demoralize our district judiciary.”
The ED had previously cited a report to claim that the trial court did not provide it with sufficient opportunity to oppose Kejriwal’s bail plea. In response, Kejriwal questioned the ED’s reliance on the report, stating-
“During the hearing on the stay application, the ED chose to present media reports to this Hon’ble Court regarding the proceedings in the Special Court’s bail application hearing. Interestingly, the ED applies inconsistent standards based on convenience. In other instances, when similar media reports were brought before the Court, the ED vehemently objected to their reliability. However, in a self-righteous manner, the ED decided to submit media coverage of the Special Judge’s proceedings. Yet, even these media reports would expose the ED’s claim of lack of fair opportunity as baseless.”
Addressing the ED’s claim that it was not given enough time to present its case before the trial court, Kejriwal’s reply stated-
“The ED’s argument that adequate opportunity for a hearing was not provided deserves stern scrutiny by this Hon’ble Court. Allowing bail matters to extend over hours or days would not only disrupt the criminal justice system but also deny justice to numerous undertrials and convicts languishing in jail awaiting bail decisions.”
In recent developments, the legal proceedings involving Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal have taken a complex turn, with accusations of money laundering being scrutinized under the lens of judicial review. The heart of the controversy revolves around the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) allegations and the subsequent judicial responses concerning the conditions for bail under the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The central argument posited by the defense is that the accusations of money laundering against Kejriwal are baseless. The contention further critiques the ED’s perspective, which suggests that the trial court overlooked critical bail conditions stipulated by Section 45 of the PMLA. In response, it was articulated that-
“No case of money laundering has been established against Kejriwal.”
This refutation challenges the foundational claims of the ED, asserting a misinterpretation of legal provisions by the agency.
In a detailed rejoinder submitted to the court, the defense outlined how the trial court comprehensively addressed all significant submissions presented by the ED. The court’s deliberation on the bail plea was meticulous, reflecting a balanced judicial approach. A notable quote from the court documents emphasized this thoroughness:
“The Special Judge, in granting bail, extensively addressed the twin conditions and carefully considered detailed submissions from both parties. The initial 15 pages of the order thoroughly examined the arguments, with a well-balanced reasoning that encompassed all aspects of the case, reflecting the wisdom and discernment of the Hon’ble Court.”
The proceedings against Kejriwal escalated to the Delhi High Court, where the matter was scheduled for a recent hearing. However, the hearing was postponed to July 15 after the ED requested additional time to formulate a response to the arguments presented by Kejriwal’s legal team.
The charges against Kejriwal stem from allegations made on March 21, claiming his involvement in crafting the now-defunct Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22, which allegedly favored certain liquor vendors. Kejriwal, maintaining his innocence, has strongly refuted these allegations and accused the ED of engaging in an “extortion racket.”
Special Judge Niyay Bindu of the Rouse Avenue Court, on June 20, granted bail to Kejriwal in the ED case. During the proceedings, Judge Bindu highlighted the absence of direct evidence linking Kejriwal to the proceeds of the alleged crime. The judge’s statement pointed out the inadequacies in the ED’s case, stating the agency had not demonstrated that another accused, Vijay Nair, acted on behalf of Kejriwal. Furthermore, Judge Bindu accused the ED of displaying bias against the Delhi Chief Minister.
Despite the bail, the legal battle intensified as the ED promptly challenged the decision in the Delhi High Court, leading to a stay on the trial court order on June 25. This stay has resulted in Kejriwal’s continued incarceration.
