[BREAKING] Big Setback For Arvind Kejriwal | Interim Stay On Bail Order By Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Today (June 21st) directed an interim stay on the trial court order granting bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case connected to the now scrapped Delhi excise policy. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain passed the order after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) moved the High Court challenging the trial court order.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

[BREAKING] Big Setback For Arvind Kejriwal | Interim Stay on Bail Order by Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday directed an interim stay on the trial court’s order granting bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The bail was connected to a money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain passed the order following a challenge by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the trial court’s decision.

“I am reserving the order for two to three days. Till pronouncement of the order, the operation of the trial court order is stayed,”

–the Court said.

The Court mentioned that it would pronounce a detailed order within two to three days. In the meantime, the bail order granted by the trial court remains stayed, as directed by the single-judge bench.

During the hearing, the ED relied heavily on live court reporting by Bar & Bench to argue for a stay on the bail order. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued,

“Section 45 of PMLA says Public Prosecutor should be given proper opportunity to be heard. I was not heard properly.”

He further added,

“When the turn of my learned friend (Sr Adv Chaudhari) came. He said he will be brief. He did not address the court in detail. But I said I will give a detailed reply because he hasn’t. He had glossed over everything. When I argued the Court said be brief.”

The ASG contended that Bar & Bench’s live reporting corroborated his claim that he was not given a proper opportunity to present his arguments fully.

“This is reported by Bar & Bench. They have reported it. He (Chaudhari) never urged a lot of points. I was not given a proper opportunity after their rejoinder. It is borne out not by me but even Bar & Bench says my arguments were cut short,”

-he argued.

He emphasized that Kejriwal’s counsel was not hurried by the judge, stating,

“ED was deprived of the proper opportunity. The judge hurried the hearing when we were arguing. No such thing was said when they were arguing.”

The ASG insisted that the trial court order should be set aside based on these grounds alone,

“I am not saying all these things. Bar & Bench has said it. The trial court order needs to go on this ground alone,”

-he added.

BACKGROUND

The trial court, on Thursday, granted bail to Kejriwal, ordering his release subject to a bail bond of Rs 1 lakh. Special Judge Niyay Bindu of the Rouse Avenue Court criticized the ED for not providing any direct evidence linking Kejriwal to the proceeds of the crime and for failing to show that Vijay Nair, another accused, was acting on Kejriwal’s behalf. The special judge noted that the ED appeared to be acting with bias against Kejriwal.

Despite the bail order being passed on Thursday, the copy became available only on Friday.

Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, accused of being part of a conspiracy to exploit loopholes in the 2021-22 Delhi Excise Policy to benefit certain liquor sellers. The ED claimed that kickbacks received from liquor sellers were used to fund AAP’s electoral campaign in Goa, making Kejriwal both personally and vicariously liable for money laundering. Kejriwal has denied these allegations, accusing the ED of running an extortion racket.

Other AAP leaders arrested in the same case include former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia, and Member of Parliament Sanjay Singh. Singh is currently out on bail, while Sisodia remains in jail.

In May, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Kejriwal to allow him to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections. However, he returned to jail on June 2 after the interim bail period expired. Kejriwal also sought interim bail on medical grounds, which the trial court rejected on June 5. Subsequently, his regular bail plea on merits was allowed by the trial court, leading the ED to approach the High Court.

As the legal battle continues, the Delhi High Court’s forthcoming detailed order will play a crucial role in determining the immediate legal future of Arvind Kejriwal amidst ongoing allegations and political controversies.

Arguments Today Before Delhi High Court

During today’s hearing before the Delhi High Court, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju argued that he was not properly heard by the trial court, which is a mandate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The ASG also contended that the trial court overlooked the documents submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). He stated,

“Kindly have a look at the trial court order. The court does not hear us, does not look at the documents given by us and says it is voluminous. Court says bulky documents have been filed. There can’t be any more perverse order than this.”

Raju further claimed that bail was granted based on perverse material.

“There are two ways on which a bail order can be set aside. I am saying it is a perverse order as irrelevant material was considered. This is totally a perverse order,” he said.

He also asserted that the judge admitted in the order that she did not examine the documents.

“A judge who admits that I have not read the papers and granted bail, there can’t be a more perverse order than this. On this ground alone, the order needs to go,” he emphasized.

The ASG noted that the Delhi High Court had previously taken into account statements made by approvers while rejecting a plea filed by Kejriwal challenging his arrest. The High Court inquired,

“You are saying the points which were elaborately dealt with by the HC have not been considered (by trial court)?”

to which the ASG responded,

“Yes.”

Raju argued that according to Section 45 of the PMLA, the trial court must provide a prima facie finding that the accused is not guilty when considering bail in money laundering cases.

“The trial court has no discretion in this case where Section 45 PMLA is involved. Court has to give a prima facie finding that he is not guilty of the offence. Para 15 of the trial court order is contrary to Section 45 PMLA. In grant of bail there is no discretion. This paragraph is wrong,” he submitted.

“There cannot be a better case for cancellation of bail,”

-he underscored, adding that Kejriwal holding the Chief Minister position should not be a ground for bail.

“Holding a constitutional chair is a ground for bail? That means every minister will be granted bail. You are a CM so you will be granted bail? Unheard of! There cannot be anything more perverse than this,” Raju contended.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the ED had three hours and 45 minutes to present their case before the trial judge.

“This matter lasted for five hours (before the trial court). Nearly 3 hours 45 minutes were taken by Mr. Raju and then the trial judge is faulted because she does not repeat every comma and full stop,” Singhvi said.

Singhvi also criticized the government agency’s attempt to discredit the judge.

“There is a misconception about what a bail hearing should be like. Just because there is political antagonism involved and if all the commas etc. are not dealt with by the judge, it gives Mr. Raju the right to malign the judge. This is deplorable, sad. It should never have come from a government authority,” he argued.

Regarding the findings in the previous Delhi High Court judgment by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Singhvi pointed out that these were made in a petition challenging Kejriwal’s arrest and not in a bail petition.

“They say the Supreme Court has not reversed Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s judgment and, therefore, bail can never be granted. Justice Sharma and the Supreme Court were dealing with the legality of arrest, not bail. It is so elementary that it is elemental. Justice Sharma in her order specifically says that ‘I am not dealing with bail but arrest’. ED argues for more than 20 minutes (here) on this aspect but forgets to mention this point,” Singhvi highlighted.

Singhvi also noted that the matter regarding the legality of arrest is still pending before the Supreme Court.

“The judgment has been carried to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court notes in its May 10 order, ‘leave granted’. Leave against what? Against Justice Sharma’s order. They have argued as if the judgment is the last word and final. It is under active consideration of the Supreme Court and the order is reserved,” he pointed out.

He emphasized that the Supreme Court had granted liberty to Kejriwal to approach the trial court for bail, indicating that Justice Sharma’s order on the legality of the arrest cannot be considered final.

“The Supreme Court gave express liberty to the trial court to consider the bail application. The Court expressly said you can approach the trial court for bail. My question is if Justice Sharma’s judgment was final as suggested by the ED, why this express liberty given by the Supreme Court? If the trial court could not decide bail unfettered by Justice Sharma’s order or other orders, then what was the point in the Supreme Court giving liberty for going for bail,” Singhvi demanded.

Singhvi also addressed the ED’s argument that the trial court did not consider the agency’s arguments.

“Every time it is said the trial court did not note that argument or consider it. The trial court does not need to write an essay. There is no perversity. I may write differently, you may write differently, this is not perversity. I may even write wrongly but that is not perversity,” he said.

“Unless the court says 2+2=6, there is no perversity,” Singhvi underscored.

He also questioned the urgency shown by the ED in getting the bail order stayed.

“At the worst, if the stay application is denied today and tomorrow the same is allowed. What will be the problem? The problem is that for the ED, Article 21 is non-existent. The liberty of a person is very, very low in the eyes of the ED, if it exists at all. They are turning the law on its head. Stay is absolutely not on. Stay would send me back to jail,” he said.

Singhvi highlighted how co-accused secured bail after giving statements against Kejriwal.

“Buchi Babu makes a statement against me in custody and he gets bail immediately. Then something very interesting happens. Magunta Reddy gives a statement totally in my favor. He has not been arrested. Now, this Magunta Reddy, his son (Raghav Magunta) is arrested. He wants to get out of jail desperately. He says his wife attempted suicide. This attempted suicide application is opposed by ED. Immediately, the desperate father (Magunta Reddy) implicates me. On the very next day, his son gets bail on the no objection of ED. This is how the ED functions. Subsequently, Raghav Magunta gets absolute bail and then he is pardoned,” Singhvi submitted.

He also discussed the conduct and statements of Sarath Reddy.

“First, he says nothing incriminatory. He makes nine statements pre-arrest and post-arrest till April 2023. None of them implicate me. ED puts them into unrelied documents. After nine statements, he implicates me. He then gets bail on grounds of back pain,” Singhvi pointed out.

Singhvi rebutted the ED’s argument that the trial court did not comply with Section 45 of PMLA regarding the existence of a prima facie case.

“There were five-and-a-half hours of arguments (before the trial court). The ratio is 4:1. Mr. Raju took 4 (hours), Mr. Chaudhari (Kejriwal’s counsel) took 1 (hour). The Court has applied correct consideration of Section 45 PMLA. The High Courts and Supreme Court have said Section 45 is not a bar on bail,” he argued.

He emphasized that interim stays on orders granting bail are typically done in cases involving terrorists or individuals likely to flee.

“The law totally bars an ‘interim, first day, without reply’ stay of order granting bail, unless it is of some terrorist or a person who is about to flee which will make the case impossible to try,” he underscored.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, also representing Kejriwal, countered the ED’s submission regarding non-compliance with Section 45 of PMLA.

“Their argument is today concerned with alleged perversity in the order. They say Section 45 twin conditions are not satisfied. He (ASG) says he was not given a fair opportunity and that irrelevant materials were considered. On all the three aspects, there are findings by the learned trial court. In para 24, the court notices that ED has failed to clarify as to how much time is required for tracing the remaining amount of Rs 60 crore,” he contended.

Chaudhary further noted that the trial judge had recorded every submission of the ASG, albeit in her own way.

“Human mind does not work in compartments. I am saying first 15 pages of the order record everything in the judge’s own manner. If they have to argue for hours to make a case of perversity in the order, then there is nothing in it,” he said.

He also stated that the ED has no evidence against Kejriwal aside from approver statements.

“What is their direct evidence? It is statements. There are findings of the court, how can it be termed perverse? These findings are after consideration of materials,” he argued.