Delhi High Court stays Arvind Kejriwal’s bail in Excise policy case
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal would continue to remain in jail as a Vacation Bench of Delhi High Court stayed his regular bail
The Delhi High Court on June 25, 2024 stayed the trial court’s June 20 order releasing Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on bail in the Excise Policy case noting that the trial court did not “appropriately appreciated the material on record” submitted by the Enforcement Directorate.
Also Read: Arvind Kejriwal bail highlights | Delhi HC stays trial court order granting bail to CM in excise policy case
The High Court referred to certain remarks made by the trial court judge where it had observed that it was not possible to go through thousands of pages of documents filed by the respective parties. “The court of the opinion that such observation was totally unjustified and also reflected that the trial court has not applied it mind to the material placed before the court at the time of dealing with the bail application,” the High Court said.
“Accordingly the application (ED’s) is allowed. The operation of the impugned order is stayed,” the high court said acting on ED’s plea challenging the bail granted to the Chief Minister last week.
The High Court also took note of the submission made by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju that the trial court judge had not given them adequate opportunity to ED to oppose the bail application filed by the chief minister as per Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“The trial court ought to give adequate opportunity to the ED to advance it argument on the bail application,” the high court said.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, while hearing Mr Kejriwal’s plea challenging the High Court’s suspension of bail granted to him pointed out that it was “unusual” for orders to be reserved in stay applications as conventionally they are pronounced soon after the Court concludes hearing arguments. The apex court will now hear the case on June 26.
The Delhi Chief Minister was arrested by the ED on March 21. The agency had alleged that Mr. Kejriwal was the ‘kingpin’ was the Delhi Excise policy scam. After remaining in jail for weeks, he was released on May 10 by the Supreme Court to campaign for the Lok Sabha polls. He returned to jail on June 2 as the apex court denied him further relief.
Before the High Court, the ED had moved an urgent plea challenging the trial court’s bail order, which was passed late last Thursday evening. ASG Raju, representing the ED, had contended that the agency was not given adequate opportunity to argue its case by the trial court.
On the other hand, senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhari, representing Mr. Kejriwal, had urged the High Court not to stay the bail order; they instead suggested that the court send him back to jail if it found overwhelming and cogent circumstances.
Presenting his case before the High Court, Mr. Raju had said, “Material facts were not considered by the trial court. There cannot be a better case for cancellation of bail than this one. There cannot be greater perversity than this.”
“I was not allowed to argue fully. I was not given proper time of 2-3 days to file written submissions. This is not done. On merits, I have an excellent case. The trial court said ‘finish off in half an hour’ as it wanted to deliver the judgment. It did not give us full opportunity to argue the case,” he had said.
“I am making the allegations with full seriousness,” Mr. Raju said, adding that he was denied the opportunity to present his case, as provided by Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The trial court did not even look at his reply on the ground that it was bulky, he had said.
He also mentioned that the trial court had given findings contrary to those of the High Court while upholding Mr. Kejriwal’s arrest. “There is evidence that Kejriwal demanded ₹100 crore but it was not considered by trial court,” he said.
‘Attempt to malign court’
Refuting Mr. Raju’s claims, Mr. Singhvi said, “This matter lasted for five hours (before the trial court). Nearly 3 hours 45 minutes were taken by Mr. Raju (ED) and then trial judge is faulted because she does not repeat every comma and full stop.”
He also called out the ED for attempting to malign the trial court judge by claiming she did not give the agency enough time to argue and did not consider material evidence.
“It is extremely unfortunate the way Mr. Raju has maligned the trial court judge,” he added.
- Telegram
SEE ALL
PRINT