Today(on 19th June), A Delhi Court will decide on Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea in the excise policy case immediately after hearing arguments, with Judge Nyay Bindu stating she will not reserve the order due to its high-profile nature. The court adjourned today’s session to Thursday to finalize pending orders and provide necessary copies.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: Today(on 19th June), A Delhi court announced that it will deliver its decision on Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal‘s bail plea in the Delhi excise policy case immediately after the completion of arguments. Vacation Judge Nyay Bindu clarified that the order will not be reserved, emphasizing the high-profile nature of the case.
Judge Nyay Bindu stated-
“I won’t defer the order. This is widely recognized as a high-profile case. I’ll deliver the verdict after the hearing without delay.”
This statement highlights the urgency and significance of the case in the public eye.
The court session included arguments from Kejriwal’s counsel, with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) presenting their case extensively but unable to finish within the day. The judge mentioned the necessity of addressing other orders, stating-
“I need to issue orders in other cases and provide copies immediately.”
before adjourning the hearing to Thursday.
Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the ED in March on charges of money laundering linked to the Delhi excise policy. This bail plea marks his first attempt to secure regular bail since his arrest. Additionally, Kejriwal’s request to have his wife, Sunita Kejriwal, present during his medical examination by the board was heard. The court had earlier sought a report from Tihar Jail on this matter, clarifying that the ED has no role in his medical treatment as he is in judicial custody.
The court’s direction for a report from Tihar Jail rather than the ED was underscored with the statement-
“It clarified that it sought a response from Tihar Jail, not the ED, since Kejriwal is in judicial custody, and the ED has no involvement regarding his request for relief such as medical treatment inside the jail.”
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, representing Kejriwal, argued that the case against his client is primarily based on statements from individuals who have been compromised.
ALSO READ: [BREAKING] Excise Policy Case: Delhi Court Extends Arvind Kejriwal’s Judicial Custody Until July 3
“The entire case against him relied on statements from individuals who not only have questionable credibility but were arrested and promised bail in exchange for supporting the ED’s case.”
-Chaudhary asserted.
Chaudhary further challenged the credibility of these witnesses, stating-
“They were promised pardons. They are not saints; they were lured. There are questions about the credibility of these individuals.”
He emphasized that these statements lack material corroboration and were given under duress.
“The statements were made after their arrest by the ED, following their failure to secure bail. The ED exchanged their personal liberty for these statements.”
-he argued.
In a detailed court session, Kejriwal’s attorney, Chaudhary, shed light on the complex backdrop of the allegations. He specifically referenced the scenario involving Lok Sabha member Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, indicating potential political undercurrents influencing legal actions. Chaudhary articulated concerns regarding the sequence of events surrounding Reddy’s involvement, stating-
“He was specifically asked about me, and he initially stated that he did not meet me regarding the excise policy. However, later he made a statement about me, and subsequently, his son received interim bail. Later on, he himself was granted pardon.”
thereby highlighting the chronological and controversial aspects of the legal proceedings.
Chaudhary also underscored the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, suggesting it was strategically planned to coincide with the upcoming elections, thus casting a shadow on the motivations behind the arrest. He argued-
“Most of the statements were accessible to them well before that. The latest statement they recorded was in August 2023. They have on record stated that I am not an accused and that I am being summoned in my personal capacity. However, when they arrested me, they cited my role as CM and AAP convenor.”
pointing out the discrepancies in the handling of the case.
The defense strongly criticized the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) handling of the case, with Chaudhary remarking-
“The accusations they are making seem like they are prosecuting me in the CBI case, not under PMLA. They are focused on scrutinizing my conduct. If my conduct is questionable, it should be assessed by the CBI. The ED’s role is limited to investigating allegations of money laundering.”
Chaudhary also challenged the lack of concrete evidence, particularly the absence of a money trail or corroborative evidence, branding the investigation as “the biggest instrument of oppression” and an unending probe likely to continue indefinitely.
In his concluding remarks during the bail application, Chaudhary highlighted the health concerns of the CM and the implications of arresting a sitting chief minister.
He appealed-
“The question is how Your Lordship will perceive the arrest of a sitting CM in a case that had been ongoing for a year and a half before the arrest. Please consider that the arrest coincided with the announcement of elections. Also, please take into account the nature of the evidence against me, which comes from individuals of questionable credibility.”
Addressing the court, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, countered the arguments presented by Chaudhary. He affirmed that a prosecution complaint had been filed and that the court had taken cognizance of the money laundering offense, indicating a prima facie case against Kejriwal.
Raju cited a Supreme Court judgment, stating-
“There is a Supreme Court judgment stating that if cognizance of an offense is taken, it implies prima facie that an offense exists.”
Raju also refuted the claim that the timing of the arrest was irrelevant and defended the credibility of the statements used as the basis for the arrest, emphasizing that ‘
“The credibility of statements can only be assessed during the trial stage and cannot be examined during bail proceedings. A bail hearing cannot function as a mini-trial.”
The Court Proceeds with ED Arguments Scheduled for June 20.
