BREAKING | Arvind Kejriwal To Remain In Prison; Delhi HC Reserves Verdict In ED's Plea Challenging Bail Order
|The Delhi High Court today reserved verdict in Enforcement Directorate's plea challenging the bail granted to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case stemming from the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
The Court also stated that the stay on Trial Court order shall continue till the pronouncement of verdict.
While reserving the Order, the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said, "Arguments are heard. I am reserving this order for two-three days. Order reserved. Till pronouncement, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. I will pronounce the Order maximum by Tuesday (June 25)."
During the hearing Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for ED, contended that that sufficient opportunity was not given to him to argue the case. Raju also argued that the findings of the Trial Court Judge are contrary to the findings of the Single-Judge of the Delhi High Court. He further contended that irrelevant facts have been considered by the Judge.
Terming the impugned order as 'perverse', Raju argued, "There can't be a more perverse order than this. Without going through the whole documents of both parties, the court made the decision. The court said the documents are bulky and on the other hand in the order stated that the documents are irrelevant." The ASG also argued that the High Court said there is no malafide, and on the same facts the Trial Court judge says there is malafide.
Raju contended, "Our case is Kejriwal is guilty of money laundering in two capacities. One is in his individual capacity, where he demanded Rs. 100 crore his role shows the generation of proceeds of crime. Secondly, he is vicariously liable, because the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) used the money in its elections, events. We have made AAP an accused in the case. Order is completely silent on this. The Trial Court can say my submissions are wrong but it can't remain absolutely silent on these aspects."
On the Contrary, vehemently opposing the stay on the impugned order, Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Kejriwal argued, "There is a complete misconception of how bail application should be dealt with by the trial court, in a former CMs matter....This whole approach is sad, this can come from a private party but not from a national agency.This matter lasted for 5 hrs. Nearly 3 hrs 45 min were taken by Mr. Raju, 1 hr 10 min was taken by Mr. Chaudhary."
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary also appearing for Kejriwal, submitted, "The learned Judge has taken out the pains. This order is the most well formulated. It will qualify for the test of justice." While concluding, the Senior Counsel contended, "It is not perversity. The ED claims my or Highway. All relevant aspects have been touched by the trial court. What else can be written in a bail order?. Its not a case of stay. I rest my case."
After a lengthy hearing, while reserving the verdict the Court said, "In the meantime, both parties shall file their written submissions if any, latest by Monday (June 24)." The Order is likely to be pronounced on June 25.
Notably, yesterday (June 20), Special Judge Niyay Bindu of Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to Kejriwal. While granting bail, the ED had requested to keep the bail order in abeyance for 48 hours to allow the central agency to avail of legal remedies like moving the High Court in Appeal. However, the same was denied by the Trial Court.
Earlier today, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for ED, had mentioned the matter for urgent listing before the Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain and Justice Ravinder Dudeja. The Court allowed the urgent listing and further stated that the Trial Court order will not take effect till the High Court hears the matter.
Pertinently, on May 10, the Apex Court had granted Interim Bail to the Delhi Chief Minister till June 1. On May 7, the Bench had clarified that, if it releases Kejriwal on bail, it does not want him to perform official duties.
Earlier, the Court had observed that it may consider granting interim bail to Kejriwal on account of elections. On April 29, the Bench had asked the Senior Counsel appearing for the Delhi CM, "Why have you not filed any Application For bail?"
Previously, the Enforcement Directorate had filed an extensive affidavit-in-reply to the Special Leave Petition by the Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal, assailing the order passed by the Delhi High Court upholding the arrest and remand in the money laundering case. In its reply, the ED had alleged that Arvind Kejriwal is the kingpin and key conspirator in the Delhi Liquor Policy Excise Scam, responsible for the mass destruction of evidence, and the main facilitator of the new policy for the bribe givers.
The ED had earlier, stated in its affidavit that there are reasons to believe, based on material in possession, that Kejriwal is guilty of the offence of money laundering. The ED had also made a comparative table to demonstrate the changes made that were allegedly arbitrary and irrational, made only to ensure large-scale profits to the bribe givers. It was also stated by the ED that Arvind Kejriwal was asked to provide the password to his mobile phones again and again, but he refused to share the same and even his statements during custody would reveal that despite being confronted with materials, the petitioner chose to give completely evasive answers.
Cause Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Arvind Kejriwal [CRL.M.C.-4858/2024, CRL.M.A. 18446/2024, CRL.M.A. 18447/2024]