Today, On 25th June, The Delhi High Court stayed the release of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, citing errors in the lower court’s decision to grant him bail. The Enforcement Directorate, which arrested Kejriwal in connection with the liquor policy case, approached the High Court last week to challenge the bail order.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday stayed the trial court‘s decision to grant him bail in the money laundering case related to the alleged excise scam. The High Court held that the lower court failed to “properly evaluate” the evidence presented by the Enforcement Directorate.
A vacation bench led by Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain emphasized that the Enforcement Directorate‘s objections to the bail order warranted significant attention.
The court stated,
“The Vacation (trial) Judge, in issuing the Impugned Order, failed to adequately assess the evidence/documents submitted and the arguments presented by the ED. The claims and grounds outlined in the petition under section 439(2) of the Code necessitate serious consideration.”
The court stated,
“The current application is therefore approved, and the implementation of the Impugned Order is stayed,”
The trial court, overseen by vacation judge Niyay Bindu, granted bail to Kejriwal on June 20, requiring a personal bond of Rs.1 lakh for his release.
Last week, the High Court approached by the Enforcement Directorate, the federal agency that had arrested the AAP leader in March regarding the liquor policy case. The ED submitted an urgent petition challenging the city court’s bail order, describing it as “perverse” and “flawed.”
In the 34-page order addressing the ED’s request to stay the bail order, Justice Jain emphasized that every court is obliged to provide sufficient opportunity for parties to present their cases. He asserted that in this instance, the ED should have been granted adequate opportunity to argue against Kejriwal’s bail application.
The High Court stated,
“This court has therefore determined that the vacation judge (Niyay Bindu of the Rouse Avenue Court) did not properly consider the material on record and the assertions made by the ED.”
Justice Jain noted that the trial judge failed to discuss and consider the arguments presented by the anti-money laundering agency, including those in the written submissions. The judge also did not address the “twin condition” requirement under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) while granting bail.
According to section 45 of PMLA, bail can be granted to an accused if the court is prima facie satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offense and if the prosecutor has been given the opportunity to oppose the bail application. The court further stated that the issue of Kejriwal’s vicarious liability as the head of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) not mentioned in the bail order.
The court opined,
“The Impugned Order reflects that the Vacation Judge issued the decision without thoroughly reviewing and appreciating the entire material presented by both parties, indicating a degree of perversity in the order. There is merit in the arguments made by Sh. S. V. Raju (for ED) that the Vacation Judge did not fully consider all the evidence on record,”
The court stated,
“Sh. S. V. Raju began his arguments by referencing paragraph 16 of the Impugned Order, where the Vacation Judge noted that it was not feasible to review thousands of pages of documents submitted by the parties. However, it is the duty of the court to diligently examine any matter under consideration and issue orders in accordance with the law,”
The court further opined that the trial court’s observations in the bail order “uncalled for, unwarranted, and out of context,” and that it should have adhered to “judicial discipline” by not attributing malafide intent to the ED, especially given an earlier high court order that found no such intent.
At this point, the court stated that Kejriwal’s arrest and remand cannot be deemed unlawful and that his personal liberty not curtailed without following the due legal procedure. It further noted that the interim bail granted to the Chief Minister by the Supreme Court not based on merit but due to the context of the Lok Sabha general elections, rendering his claim of not misusing the bail less significant.
It stated,
“There is also no substance in Dr. Singhvi’s (CM’s lawyer) argument that the respondent (Kejriwal) can be remanded to judicial custody again, especially considering that the Impugned Order passed by the Vacation Judge is under serious challenge, and the grounds raised by the ED require the court’s consideration,”
On June 20, Special Judge Niyay Bindu, acting as the vacation judge, granted bail to Kejriwal in the money laundering case, citing the ED’s failure to present direct evidence linking him to the crime’s proceeds. On June 21, the high court suspended the bail order’s operation until a decision on the stay request and issued a notice to Kejriwal for his response to the ED’s plea challenging the trial court’s decision, scheduling the hearing for July 10 before the roster bench.
Kejriwal filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the interim stay on his bail. The Supreme Court scheduled a hearing for June 26, expressing its intention to await the high court’s ruling before proceeding.
In the Supreme Court, which last month granted Mr. Kejriwal interim bail to campaign for his party and the Congress-led INDIA opposition bloc in the general election, the AAP leader contended that the “balance of convenience” favoured him. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued,
“If bail is reversed, he will return to jail, as he did after the Supreme Court’s interim release.”
Mr. Singhvi also referenced the Supreme Court’s order granting Mr. Kejriwal interim bail, which recognized that the AAP leader is not a “habitual offender” and has no criminal history.
Mr. Kejriwal questioned,
“Why can’t I be free in the interim? I have a judgment in my favour,”
Last Thursday, Mr. Kejriwal granted regular bail by the Rouse Avenue Court.
Read Also: ED Seeks Access to Arvind Kejriwal’s iPhone Amidst Investigation
The excise policy in question scrapped in 2022 following the Delhi lieutenant governor‘s directive for a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities and corruption in its creation and implementation. According to the CBI and ED, the modifications to the excise policy involved irregularities, and undue benefits given to license holders.
The ED arrested Mr. Kejriwal on money laundering charges related to the 2021-22 Delhi liquor policy, which subsequently scrapped after concerns were raised by the Lieutenant Governor.
The ED claims that approximately Rs.100 crore, allegedly received by Mr. Kejriwal and the AAP from liquor vendors, used to finance the party’s election campaigns in Goa and Punjab. Both Mr. Kejriwal and the AAP have dismissed these accusations as political vendetta, highlighting that despite extensive investigations, the ED has not found any trace of the alleged bribe money.
Read Order