Today, On 26th June, The Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the Supreme Court that the judge hurriedly granted bail to Arvind Kejriwal, without allowing the prosecutor a chance to oppose the decision. The ED emphasized that this procedural lapse undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED), On Wednesday, informed the Supreme Court that the trial court judge acted in “haste” and did not provide the prosecutor with a fair opportunity to oppose the bail granted to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case connected to the alleged excise scam.
The federal agency criticized the June 20 trial court order granting Kejriwal regular bail, calling it “perverse” for failing to comply with the mandatory conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A vacation bench consisting of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice SVN Bhatti acknowledged the ED’s reply affidavit filed in response to Kejriwal’s plea challenging the interim stay issued by the Delhi High Court on June 21. Additionally, the bench permitted Kejriwal to withdraw his plea after senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing him, stated that he would file a substantial appeal following the high court’s final order on June 25, which stayed the bail order.
The Supreme Court allowed Arvind Kejriwal to file a substantial appeal. In its affidavit, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) highlighted that Section 45 of the PMLA mandates two conditions, the public prosecutor must be given a chance to oppose bail, and if opposed, the court must ensure there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offences while on bail.
Seeking to overturn the June 20 order, The affidavit stated,
“In this case, the prosecuting agency specifically argued that the trial court judge was in a hurry and did not provide the Additional Solicitor General with a reasonable opportunity to oppose the bail,”
The ED emphasized that money laundering a severe offence, and the PMLA’s requirements take precedence over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding bail decisions.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) further stated that a court considering a bail application must be convinced, based on a thorough review, that the accused “is not guilty of such offence.”
The ED asserted,
“This necessarily entails examining the records, investigation papers, and filed complaints, as only through such a review can the court reach a valid conclusion regarding the accused’s guilt or innocence concerning money laundering,”
The agency added,
“If any of these prerequisite mandatory conditions are not met, the order would violate Section 45 of the Act and be considered perverse on that ground alone. Perversity can also arise from other reasons apart from non-compliance with mandatory conditions,”
The ED emphasized that this issue is not merely a contention by the prosecuting agency but an admitted fact that the trial court judge did not examine the case records despite being specifically requested by the prosecution.
The ED concluded,
“The impugned order itself clearly shows non-compliance with the mandatory conditions stipulated under Section 45 of the Act,”
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) raised concerns about the bail hearing of Arvind Kejriwal, highlighting that during the June 20 session, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju repeatedly interrupted and asked to shorten his arguments by the trial court judge.
The ED stated,
“The impugned order reflects that the decision was made hastily and without a thorough review of the case records.”
While the concept of ‘opportunity of hearing’ cannot be strictly defined by a set time frame as it varies case by case, the ED emphasized that the judge’s insistence on cutting short the arguments and not thoroughly examining the case record demonstrated a clear violation of the mandatory requirements under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The agency added,
“These undisputed facts indicate that the bail order is fundamentally flawed both factually and legally, and should be annulled,”
Additionally, on Wednesday, a Delhi court granted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) permission to formally arrest Kejriwal concerning the alleged excise scam. This followed the high court’s stay on the trial court’s decision to grant bail, citing that the lower court had not “appropriately appreciated” the evidence presented by the ED.
Read Also: [BREAKING] CBI Arrests Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal from Tihar Jail
The excise policy revoked in 2022 following an order from the Delhi lieutenant governor for a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities and corruption related to its creation and implementation. Both the ED and the CBI allege that the policy was altered improperly, resulting in undue advantages being given to license holders.