Arvind Kejriwal withdraws plea from Supreme Court against HC’s interim stay on bail order
Arvind Kejriwal says ‘events overtaking’ him every day while pointing to CBI arrest; Supreme Court gives him liberty to launch a fresh challenge against Delhi HC stay of bail
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal withdrew from the Supreme Court on June 26 saying “events are overtaking” him rapidly with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) reviving a 2022 interrogation to arrest him shortly after the State High Court pronounced a judgment staying the bail granted to him by a trial court in money laundering charges linked to the excise policy case.
Also read | CBI arrests Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in excise scam case
“On a 2022 interrogation and notice by the CBI, I [Kejriwal] have been arrested… re-arrested yesterday [June 25] while still under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act [PMLA]… A judgment [of the Delhi High Court] has come… The judgment has all kinds of issues,” senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, for Mr. Kejriwal, conveyed to a Vacation Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and S.V. Bhatti.
Watch | What was the New Delhi Excise Policy all about, and why is Arvind Kejriwal in trouble
The Bench allowed Mr. Kejriwal’s request to withdraw from the Supreme Court for the time being with liberty to launch a fresh challenge against the State High Court judgment of June 25 to stay his bail in the excise policy case, followed by the unexpected move of the CBI to arrest him.
The Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP’s) national convenor has been in custody, except for a short interval the Supreme Court allowed him interim bail to campaign for votes in the Lok Sabha elections, since his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21. The trial court had allowed him statutory bail under Section 45(1) of the PMLA on June 20. However, the Delhi High Court had paused the operation of the bail order the very next day while reserving its verdict on a stay application filed by the ED.
Arvind Kejriwal hearing highlights
The Supreme Court, on June 24, adjourned Mr. Kejriwal’s challenge of the interim suspension of the implementation of the statutory bail and decided to wait for the High Court judgment. On June 25, the High Court pronounced a final decision to stay the trial court bail.
Mr. Singhvi, on Wednesday,said he had no option left but to come back to the apex court with a “substantive” petition challenging all the subsequent developments, including the final judgment of the High Court on June 25.
The ED, in a 73-page reply with detailed annexures filed in the Supreme Court through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, submitted that the trial judge was “in a hurry and did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the Additional Solicitor General [appearing for the agency] to oppose the bail”.
Statutory bail under Section 45(1) of the PMLA can be given only after extensive examination of records, investigation papers, complaint, etc. Bail can be allowed only if the trial judge is satisfied that the accused is not guilty of money laundering. Moreover, the Public Prosecutor must be provided an “effective opportunity” to object to the bail plea.
“It is an admitted fact that the Special Judge did not examine the record of the case though specifically requested by the prosecuting agency,” the ED affidavit, which was taken in record by the apex court, submitted.
On the mandatory pre-requisite of examining documents to record satisfaction about the accused’s guilt, the ED said the trial judge, in her own order, went on to note that “it is not possible to go through the documents ‘at this juncture’”. The ED alleged that the trial judge had found “most of the material” placed on record irrelevant and voluminous.
“Prima facie, it clearly appears that no such finding could have been given without perusing the material. Mere volume of the material would not be a valid ground for the judge to refuse to examine the material since such examination is the mandate of law,” the ED reply argued in the Supreme Court.
- Telegram
SEE ALL
PRINT
money laundering
/
justice and rights
/
laws