Delhi High Court Stays Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Money Laundering Case
In a significant setback for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi High Court has paused a lower court order granting him bail in a money laundering case stemming from the now-abolished excise policy. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenged the trial court's bail order, and a vacation bench of Justices Sudhir Kumar Jain and Ravinder Dudeja intervened to halt the trial court's proceedings. Consequently, Kejriwal will remain in detention until the High Court resolves the matter.
ED Challenges Trial Court Order as 'Perverse'
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, representing the ED, asserted before the High Court that he was denied a full opportunity to present his arguments. Expressing dismay, he remarked, There can't be a more perverse order than this... Without reading the documents submitted by both sides, without giving us a chance, the matter gets decided. Raju argued that he was rushed during the proceedings, with the judge displaying impatience and swiftly dismissing the case. Notably, the judge acknowledged the voluminous nature of the submitted documents but declined to review them. A judge who confesses to not reading the papers yet grants bail, there cannot be greater perversity than this, Raju contended.
ED Presents 'Direct Evidence' Overlooked by Trial Court
Citing Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Raju vehemently urged the court to stay the bail order. He voiced strong objections to the trial court's handling of the case, alleging that the ED's submissions were disregarded. I'm shocked that despite submitting the written note, the court asserts that the ED hasn't proven its case. You can rule against me, but don't misstate facts, Raju emphasized. Elaborating on the ED's evidence against Kejriwal, the ASG argued that the trial court dismissed crucial findings. We have presented compelling evidence to demonstrate his involvement in demanding Rs 100 crore. Yet, the judge dismisses it as lacking direct evidence. Direct evidence is in the form of statements. There is corroboration as well, he explained. Raju lambasted the trial court's reasoning for granting bail, stating, Holding a constitutional office as a basis for bail? That suggests every minister will be entitled to bail. Unheard of, there can be nothing more absurd.
Kejriwal's Team Condemns ED's Approach as 'Deplorable'
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, strongly condemned the ED's approach. Refuting ASG Raju's arguments, Singhvi asserted, He (ASG) claims the order is perverse and focuses on a minor aspect... Like Alice in Wonderland, the ED has its own definition of perversity. Singhvi clarified that the High Court and Supreme Court were reviewing the legality of the arrest, not the bail. The Supreme Court has deferred its decision on the arrest's legality... Bail and its cancellation/reversal are distinct legal concepts, he elaborated. Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary echoed Singhvi's assertions, countering ASG Raju's accusations. All these allegations are baseless, Chaudhary maintained. They presented their arguments extensively. Are 7 hours of arguments inadequate? Someone should concede gracefully.
Background:
Kejriwal was apprehended by the ED on March 21, 2024, in dramatic circumstances shortly before the Lok Sabha elections. In May, the Supreme Court released him on interim bail considering the upcoming general elections. He surrendered voluntarily on June 2.
