Today, On 12th July, Arvind Kejriwal’s interim bail conditions prohibit him from visiting his office or signing any files. The court’s order aims to ensure he doesn’t influence the investigation or tamper with evidence. During this period, Kejriwal must adhere strictly to these restrictions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal on Friday in a money laundering case linked to the liquor policy controversy.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta imposed specific conditions for Kejriwal’s bail. Notably, he is prohibited from visiting the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) and the Delhi Secretariat during the bail period.
The court required Kejriwal to submit a bail bond of Rs 50,000, along with one surety of the same amount, to the Jail Superintendent‘s satisfaction. Furthermore, he is bound by the statements made on his behalf and is not allowed to sign any official documents unless he first receives clearance from the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
Additionally, Kejriwal barred from making any public statements related to his involvement in the case, interacting with witnesses, or accessing any official files related to the case.
The bench referred the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case to a larger bench for further consideration.
Arvind Kejriwal arrested by the ED on March 21 in connection with the liquor policy case. Despite the interim bail, he will remain in Tihar Jail as his judicial custody in a separate corruption case by the CBI been extended until July 25. The CBI arrested Kejriwal from Tihar Jail on June 26 in relation to the alleged excise policy scam.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court set to examine whether an arrest made under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) can be contested on the basis that there was “no necessity to arrest” the individual.
In simpler terms, the Supreme Court will decide if a person arrested under Section 19 PMLA can argue that the arrest unnecessary.
The Court posed the following questions for consideration by a larger bench:
(a) Can the “need and necessity to arrest” be a separate ground for challenging an arrest under Section 19(1) of the PMLA?
(b) Does the “need and necessity to arrest” pertain to the formal parameters of arrest, or does it relate to other personal grounds and reasons based on the specifics of the case?
(c) If the above questions are affirmed, what parameters and facts should the court consider while evaluating the “need and necessity to arrest”?
Section 19 allows the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to arrest an individual if it has “reasons to believe” the person is guilty under PMLA. However, it does not specify “necessity to arrest” as a challengeable ground, focusing instead on the ED’s “reasons to believe” in the person’s guilt.
Kejriwal’s counsel argued there was no “necessity to arrest” him on March 21, 2024, as the case registered in August 2022, with most material evidence dated prior to July 2023. The ED countered that the necessity due to Kejriwal’s repeated failure to respond to nine summonses, and that arrest is integral to securing evidence and information.
The Court highlighted that while Section 45 PMLA prioritizes the ED’s opinion on bail matters, the agency must act uniformly and consistently. The principle of proportionality, balancing the accused’s fundamental rights with public interest, emphasized. The Court needs to determine if less restrictive measures could be equally effective.
As a result, the Court referred the “necessity to arrest” issue to a larger bench and granted Kejriwal interim bail, subject to further decisions by the larger bench.
The Court affirmed that an accused can challenge their arrest under PMLA and must have access to the grounds of their arrest to do so. It emphasized judicial scrutiny of the ED’s “reasons to believe” and the necessity to furnish these reasons to the accused.
Read Also: BREAKING | Arvind Kejriwal Moves Sessions Court Against Summons
It clarified that while the Court will not quash the current reasons for arrest, these can be contested during bail hearings. Kejriwal arrested on March 21 in connection with a conspiracy allegedly involving AAP leaders to manipulate the Delhi Excise Policy to benefit certain liquor vendors, with funds allegedly used for AAP’s Goa election campaign.
Kejriwal’s initial plea against his arrest rejected by the Delhi High Court, leading to the present appeal to the Supreme Court. After reserving its verdict on May 17, the Supreme Court issued its decision. Kejriwal also sought bail separately, granted by the trial court on June 20, but this was stayed by the Delhi High Court on June 25.