The Supreme Court issued an order Today (April 3rd) to remove advocate Bansuri Swaraj’s name from its bail grant to AAP leader Sanjay Singh. This decision came after the ED acknowledged that her inclusion in the list was a result of an “inadvertent error”. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, heading the bench, stated, “Alright, we will rectify the order.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today made a notable correction by ordering the removal of advocate Bansuri Swaraj’s name from a previous order that had granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh. This adjustment came after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) highlighted that her inclusion was a result of an “inadvertent error.”
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, leading the bench, promptly agreed to amend the court’s decision, reflecting the error’s acknowledgment.
“Alright, we will rectify the order.”
-Apex Court
The matter was brought to the court’s attention by Advocate Zoheb Hussain, representing the ED, who clarified that Swaraj had not been involved in the case and did not represent the agency in any capacity. Hussain pointed out that the appearance of Swaraj’s name on the slip was accidental. Notably, Bansuri Swaraj is a candidate from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) vying for a seat in the New Delhi parliamentary constituency.
This correction followed the Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to grant bail to Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh in connection with a money laundering case linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. The decision was facilitated after the ED communicated that it had no objections to Singh’s release. Having spent six months behind bars, Singh’s release was ordered by a bench comprised of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, and P B Varale, marking a significant development in the ongoing excise policy case saga.
BACKGROUND
The Supreme Court, Yesterday granted bail to Sanjay Singh, a prominent figure in the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), concerning the contentious Delhi liquor policy case. This decision comes following the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) statement indicating that Singh’s continued custody is no longer necessary. This pivotal ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, and Prasanna B Varale, who ordered Singh’s release on bail for the duration of the trial.
According to reports, the court had raised inquiries before the lunch break, prompting Additional Solicitor General SV Raju to ascertain whether there was a requisite for Singh’s extended detention. Later in the afternoon session, ASG Raju acknowledged that despite the ED having a plausible case, they were prepared to concede, paving the way for Singh’s release on bail.
The court’s considerations were guided by the provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This section necessitates the court to afford the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to contest the bail plea while also stipulating that the accused can be released on bail only if the court is convinced of their innocence and that they pose no threat of committing further offenses while on bail.
The justices underscored this legal mandate, reminding ASG Raju of the implications during the trial phase.
“Mr. Raju, please keep in mind we have to, as per Section 45, observe in favor of the petitioner. Please understand the implications of that during trial. So get instructions on whether you need further custody,”
-the court remarked, emphasizing the need for a thorough adherence to legal procedures.
Moreover, the court highlighted the role of Dinesh Arora, a businessman who has turned approver in the case. Notably, in his initial statements, Arora had refrained from implicating Singh, which the court found significant in its considerations.
This development marks a significant turn in the ongoing legal saga surrounding the Delhi liquor policy case. The decision to grant bail to Sanjay Singh underscores the court’s commitment to upholding legal principles while ensuring justice is served. As the trial progresses, all eyes will remain on the proceedings, awaiting further developments in this high-profile case.
The bench presiding over the proceedings was tasked with evaluating the bail plea filed by Sanjay Singh in connection with the Delhi excise policy case, which also incorporates Singh’s prior petition contesting his remand in the case. Singh’s apprehension by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on October 4, 2023, stemmed from allegations implicating him in the formulation and execution of the now-defunct Delhi Excise Policy, underpinned by suspicions of money laundering.
The ED contended that the policy had been tailored to favor select liquor manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, thus amplifying the gravity of Singh’s purported involvement. Despite Singh’s attempts to secure bail, his efforts were met with successive setbacks. The trial court rebuffed his bail plea on December 22, while the Delhi High Court mirrored this stance on February 9, prompting Singh to escalate the matter to the apex court.
During today’s hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Singh, highlighted pivotal aspects of the case. Singhvi underscored that Singh’s initial non-implication in the case underscores a critical facet of the proceedings. Moreover, Singhvi argued that the evolving nature of the approver’s statements casts doubt on the veracity of the allegations against Singh.
Singhvi’s defense included a notable assertion regarding Singh’s outspokenness, stating,
“They (ED) pounced on me [Singh] after my press conference. Perhaps my press conference was foolish, but you can be foolish and outspoken in a free country,”
-encapsulating the complex interplay between freedom of expression and legal scrutiny.
Amidst the legal deliberations, the Court delved into nuanced inquiries concerning the intersection of various legal statutes. One such query revolved around the applicability of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) vis-à-vis the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, particularly regarding the attachment of bribery proceeds. The Court’s elucidation underscored the intricacies of legal interpretation within the context of multifaceted criminal proceedings.
Furthermore, the roots of the case lie in a 2022 complaint lodged by Delhi’s Lieutenant General, VK Saxena, alleging a systematic scheme to manipulate the formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22. The complaint implicated leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), including former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, alleging a calculated conspiracy to exploit regulatory loopholes for personal gain. This sprawling investigation has ensnared prominent political figures, including Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha, further underscoring the gravity of the allegations.
In light of recent developments, including the arrests of key AAP figures and ongoing judicial proceedings, the case has assumed heightened significance, resonating beyond its immediate legal ramifications. As the legal saga unfolds, it serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities inherent in governance and the enduring pursuit of justice within the Indian political landscape.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Sanjay Singh
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arvind Kejriwal
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Delhi Excise Policy Scam
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
