New Delhi: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal He was about to come out on bail for the second time after his arrest in the alleged liquor policy case. But before the order was uploaded, Enforcement Directorate (ED) was hastily transferred Delhi High Court against Lower court Issued order and demanded immediate hearing.
The vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain heard heated arguments between the lawyers of the investigating agency and the Aam Aadmi Party chief throughout the day and reserved its order.For now, the High Court has put an interim stay on the bail order of the Rouse Avenue Court and Kejriwal will have to remain in jail. The High Court said that it is reserving the order for 2-3 days as it wants to see the entire record.
Meanwhile, the court has issued a notice to Kejriwal seeking his response on the ED’s petition challenging the trial court’s June 20 order granting him bail. The hearing on this petition has been fixed for July 10.
‘Trial court order wrong’: ED
The Enforcement Directorate had filed a petition in the High Court for an urgent hearing. Bail Order The petition, passed late Thursday evening, argued that the trial court order was “perverse”, “one-sided” and “erroneous”.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for the ED, claimed that the findings of the investigation were based on irrelevant facts. He claimed that the special judge did not consider the relevant facts.
“The trial court did not consider the facts. There could be no better case than this to cancel the bail. There could be no bigger perversion than this,” he argued.
He also argued that the investigating agency was not given adequate opportunity to present its case.
During the arguments, Raju also told the High Court that when the ED lawyers urged the lower court to stay its order for 48 hours so that they could approach the High Court, this prayer was not considered.
“I was not allowed to argue fully. I was not given a reasonable time of 2-3 days to file written arguments. That was not done. On merits, I have an excellent case. The trial court said finish the case in half an hour because it wanted to pronounce the verdict. It did not give us a full opportunity to argue the case,” Raju said. “I am making the allegation with all seriousness,” he added.
He said that as per Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the public prosecutor should be given an opportunity to present his case, but I was not given this opportunity.
He said the trial court did not consider his reply on the ground that it was too voluminous and claimed that the trial court after considering wrong facts and wrong dates arrived at the conclusion that there was mala fide on the part of the ED.
He further argued that the trial court’s findings contradict the findings of the High Court, which had upheld Kejriwal’s arrest. Raju stressed that if irrelevant facts are considered, it becomes a reason to cancel bail. He pointed out that the trial court did not consider the evidence of Kejriwal demanding Rs 100 crore.
“If irrelevant facts are considered, that is also a reason for cancellation of bail. There is evidence that Kejriwal had demanded Rs 100 crore, but the trial court did not consider it,” he argued.
“We have given details of the entire money trail,” he said, adding that the money obtained through crime was used by the AAP in its Goa assembly election campaign.
“We have given full details of the money transactions,” Raju said, stressing that the proceeds of crime were used by the AAP during its campaign for the Goa assembly elections. He pointed out that the ED has accused the AAP in a money laundering case and these offences fall under Section 70 of the PMLA, which deals with companies. Raju argued that the ED has compared the AAP to a company and Kejriwal to its director.
What did Kejriwal’s team tell the High Court?
The probe agency’s plea seeking stay on Kejriwal’s bail was strongly opposed by senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Vikram Choudhary, appearing for the AAP leader. They said Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution does not exist for the ED, for which individual liberty is less of a priority.
Singhvi said the ED argued before the trial judge for 3 hours and 45 minutes.
“The case (before the trial court) went on for five hours. Mr Raju took about 3 hours and 45 minutes and then the trial judge was blamed as he did not repeat every comma and full stop,” he said.
Singhvi urged the court not to stay Kejriwal’s bail and said if the court found compelling circumstances, it could send him back to jail later.
Singhvi criticised the ED’s attempt to tarnish the reputation of the trial court judge who conducted the bail hearing. He argued that the agency’s claim that the judge did not allot sufficient time for their arguments and failed to consider relevant evidence is misleading and unfortunate.
Singhvi emphasised that the ED’s approach is reprehensible and should never be taken from government authority, especially in a case involving political animosity. He made it clear that the bail hearing should not be misunderstood and the judge’s handling of the case should not be questioned just because every detail was not looked into.
Advocate Chaudhary said that Kejriwal’s surrender before the jail authorities after the expiry of the interim bail period shows his good faith and compliance with the legal process. He argued that no prejudice or harm will be caused to society by granting bail to Kejriwal with the conditions imposed by the court as he is not a terrorist or a threat to public safety.
Chowdhary also questioned the possible consequences of releasing the state’s chief minister on bail and said it would not have any detrimental impact on the proceedings or the overall society.
He argued, “If he is out with the conditions imposed by the court, what is the prejudice in it. He is not a terrorist that if he is released he will harm the society. What if the Chief Minister of the state comes out on bail?”
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal will have to stay in jail for a few more days till the High Court’s decision comes. The decision will be announced “in two to three days.”
“Pending an interim stay on the trial court’s order granting bail to Kejriwal, the court said, “Pending the pronouncement of the judgment, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.”
(With PTI inputs)
The vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain heard heated arguments between the lawyers of the investigating agency and the Aam Aadmi Party chief throughout the day and reserved its order.For now, the High Court has put an interim stay on the bail order of the Rouse Avenue Court and Kejriwal will have to remain in jail. The High Court said that it is reserving the order for 2-3 days as it wants to see the entire record.
Meanwhile, the court has issued a notice to Kejriwal seeking his response on the ED’s petition challenging the trial court’s June 20 order granting him bail. The hearing on this petition has been fixed for July 10.
‘Trial court order wrong’: ED
The Enforcement Directorate had filed a petition in the High Court for an urgent hearing. Bail Order The petition, passed late Thursday evening, argued that the trial court order was “perverse”, “one-sided” and “erroneous”.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for the ED, claimed that the findings of the investigation were based on irrelevant facts. He claimed that the special judge did not consider the relevant facts.
“The trial court did not consider the facts. There could be no better case than this to cancel the bail. There could be no bigger perversion than this,” he argued.
He also argued that the investigating agency was not given adequate opportunity to present its case.
During the arguments, Raju also told the High Court that when the ED lawyers urged the lower court to stay its order for 48 hours so that they could approach the High Court, this prayer was not considered.
“I was not allowed to argue fully. I was not given a reasonable time of 2-3 days to file written arguments. That was not done. On merits, I have an excellent case. The trial court said finish the case in half an hour because it wanted to pronounce the verdict. It did not give us a full opportunity to argue the case,” Raju said. “I am making the allegation with all seriousness,” he added.
He said that as per Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the public prosecutor should be given an opportunity to present his case, but I was not given this opportunity.
He said the trial court did not consider his reply on the ground that it was too voluminous and claimed that the trial court after considering wrong facts and wrong dates arrived at the conclusion that there was mala fide on the part of the ED.
He further argued that the trial court’s findings contradict the findings of the High Court, which had upheld Kejriwal’s arrest. Raju stressed that if irrelevant facts are considered, it becomes a reason to cancel bail. He pointed out that the trial court did not consider the evidence of Kejriwal demanding Rs 100 crore.
“If irrelevant facts are considered, that is also a reason for cancellation of bail. There is evidence that Kejriwal had demanded Rs 100 crore, but the trial court did not consider it,” he argued.
“We have given details of the entire money trail,” he said, adding that the money obtained through crime was used by the AAP in its Goa assembly election campaign.
“We have given full details of the money transactions,” Raju said, stressing that the proceeds of crime were used by the AAP during its campaign for the Goa assembly elections. He pointed out that the ED has accused the AAP in a money laundering case and these offences fall under Section 70 of the PMLA, which deals with companies. Raju argued that the ED has compared the AAP to a company and Kejriwal to its director.
What did Kejriwal’s team tell the High Court?
The probe agency’s plea seeking stay on Kejriwal’s bail was strongly opposed by senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Vikram Choudhary, appearing for the AAP leader. They said Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution does not exist for the ED, for which individual liberty is less of a priority.
Singhvi said the ED argued before the trial judge for 3 hours and 45 minutes.
“The case (before the trial court) went on for five hours. Mr Raju took about 3 hours and 45 minutes and then the trial judge was blamed as he did not repeat every comma and full stop,” he said.
Singhvi urged the court not to stay Kejriwal’s bail and said if the court found compelling circumstances, it could send him back to jail later.
Singhvi criticised the ED’s attempt to tarnish the reputation of the trial court judge who conducted the bail hearing. He argued that the agency’s claim that the judge did not allot sufficient time for their arguments and failed to consider relevant evidence is misleading and unfortunate.
Singhvi emphasised that the ED’s approach is reprehensible and should never be taken from government authority, especially in a case involving political animosity. He made it clear that the bail hearing should not be misunderstood and the judge’s handling of the case should not be questioned just because every detail was not looked into.
Advocate Chaudhary said that Kejriwal’s surrender before the jail authorities after the expiry of the interim bail period shows his good faith and compliance with the legal process. He argued that no prejudice or harm will be caused to society by granting bail to Kejriwal with the conditions imposed by the court as he is not a terrorist or a threat to public safety.
Chowdhary also questioned the possible consequences of releasing the state’s chief minister on bail and said it would not have any detrimental impact on the proceedings or the overall society.
He argued, “If he is out with the conditions imposed by the court, what is the prejudice in it. He is not a terrorist that if he is released he will harm the society. What if the Chief Minister of the state comes out on bail?”
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal will have to stay in jail for a few more days till the High Court’s decision comes. The decision will be announced “in two to three days.”
“Pending an interim stay on the trial court’s order granting bail to Kejriwal, the court said, “Pending the pronouncement of the judgment, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.”
(With PTI inputs)
