New Delhi: Enforcement Directorate (ED) failed to produce direct evidence related to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal Kejrival till proceeds of crime In Money laundering A Delhi court has registered a case against him and ordered his release. BailHowever, the order passed on Thursday has been stayed by the Delhi High Court on ED’s appeal.The trial court order was made available to the media on Friday.
Granting relief to Kejriwal, Special Judge Nyaay Bindu said that prima facie his guilt has not been proved yet.
“It may be possible that some persons known to the applicant may be involved in some crime…but the Enforcement Directorate has failed to produce any direct evidence against the applicant regarding the proceeds of crime,” the judge said.
He also questioned the ED’s silence on Kejriwal’s claim that he was arrested in the money laundering case related to the alleged excise scam without being named in either the CBI FIR or the ECIR filed by the anti-money laundering agency. The Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is the ED’s version of the FIR.
“It is also worth noting that the ED is silent about the fact as to how the proceeds of crime have been used by the AAP in the Assembly elections in Goa while even after almost two years a major portion of the alleged amount is still to be traced,” the judge said.
Kejriwal and his Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) are accused of accepting a bribe of Rs 100 crore from the South Group, a syndicate of politicians, businessmen and others to manipulate the Delhi liquor policy in favour of licensees. The money was allegedly used in the 2022 Goa assembly election campaign.
The judge said the ED had failed to explain how much time it took to trace the entire source of the money.
“This means that till the ED completes the process of ascertaining the balance amount, the accused will have to remain behind bars, that too without any proper evidence against him. This is also not an acceptable argument of the ED,” the judge said.
He said that the principle of law that every person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty does not appear to be applicable in this case in respect of the present accused.
The judge quoted Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, who said, “It is better that 100 guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should suffer.”
“This principle casts an obligation on the court not only to prevent guilty persons from escaping justice but also to ensure that no innocent person is punished. There have been thousands of cases in which the accused have had to face prolonged trials and suffer as a result until they are acquitted by the court on grounds of innocence.
He said, “Unfortunately, the mental and physical suffering of such a person cannot be compensated in any way.”
He said that if an accused continues to suffer the atrocities of the system until his innocence is proven, he will never be able to think that justice has actually been done to him.
The judge said there are certain undisputed facts cited by the applicant that the material in question was already in possession of the ED in the month of July 2022 but it was summoned only in August 2023, which shows mala fide on the part of the central agency. “The investigating agency has failed to answer this objection of the applicant,” the judge said.
He also rejected the ED’s argument that “investigation is an art and sometimes an accused is lured with bail and pardon and some assurance to tell the story behind the crime.”
“If that is so, any person can be artfully implicated by obtaining material against him and put behind bars after removing the exculpatory material from the record. This scenario forces the court to conclude against the investigating agency that it is not acting without any bias,” the judge said.
The judge said that the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), appearing for the ED, talked about inducement to reveal the truth against other accused involved in the case.
“But the effect of this presentation is to convey the impression that the full truth cannot be revealed through individuals who have retracted their previous statements.
“Rather, the entire truth would be established on the basis of material, if any, available on record, which the investigating agency is bound to obtain in a legal manner while following procedural aspects,” the judge said.
The judge said the allegations against Kejriwal came up during the subsequent statements of some co-accused. He said it was also an admitted fact that he has not been summoned by the court after his arrest and is “in judicial custody at the instance of the ED on the pretext that the investigation is still going on.”
“Prima facie, the guilt of the accused is not yet established. With regard to the condition of not getting involved in any crime after being released on bail, the applicant has already admitted this in his application. Further, if bail is granted, it will be conditional, thereby binding the applicant in this regard,” the judge said.
He said it is also worth noting that in cases under PMLA, obtaining bail becomes an impossible task as the investigating agency on one pretext or the other gives its own reasons thereby putting the accused in almost the same position as a convict who has no hope of being released from the gloomy atmosphere of prison.
On Thursday, the judge had ordered Kejriwal’s release on bail on a personal bond of Rs one lakh. However, before granting the relief, the judge also imposed certain conditions on the AAP leader, including that he will not try to obstruct the investigation or influence witnesses.
The judge had also directed Kejriwal to appear in the court whenever required and cooperate in the investigation.
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, soon after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him protection from arrest on his plea challenging the summons issued to him.
On May 10, the Supreme Court granted Kejriwal interim bail till June 1 to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections and said he would have to surrender and return to jail on June 2. He has been in jail since then.
Granting relief to Kejriwal, Special Judge Nyaay Bindu said that prima facie his guilt has not been proved yet.
“It may be possible that some persons known to the applicant may be involved in some crime…but the Enforcement Directorate has failed to produce any direct evidence against the applicant regarding the proceeds of crime,” the judge said.
He also questioned the ED’s silence on Kejriwal’s claim that he was arrested in the money laundering case related to the alleged excise scam without being named in either the CBI FIR or the ECIR filed by the anti-money laundering agency. The Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is the ED’s version of the FIR.
“It is also worth noting that the ED is silent about the fact as to how the proceeds of crime have been used by the AAP in the Assembly elections in Goa while even after almost two years a major portion of the alleged amount is still to be traced,” the judge said.
Kejriwal and his Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) are accused of accepting a bribe of Rs 100 crore from the South Group, a syndicate of politicians, businessmen and others to manipulate the Delhi liquor policy in favour of licensees. The money was allegedly used in the 2022 Goa assembly election campaign.
The judge said the ED had failed to explain how much time it took to trace the entire source of the money.
“This means that till the ED completes the process of ascertaining the balance amount, the accused will have to remain behind bars, that too without any proper evidence against him. This is also not an acceptable argument of the ED,” the judge said.
He said that the principle of law that every person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty does not appear to be applicable in this case in respect of the present accused.
The judge quoted Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, who said, “It is better that 100 guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should suffer.”
“This principle casts an obligation on the court not only to prevent guilty persons from escaping justice but also to ensure that no innocent person is punished. There have been thousands of cases in which the accused have had to face prolonged trials and suffer as a result until they are acquitted by the court on grounds of innocence.
He said, “Unfortunately, the mental and physical suffering of such a person cannot be compensated in any way.”
He said that if an accused continues to suffer the atrocities of the system until his innocence is proven, he will never be able to think that justice has actually been done to him.
The judge said there are certain undisputed facts cited by the applicant that the material in question was already in possession of the ED in the month of July 2022 but it was summoned only in August 2023, which shows mala fide on the part of the central agency. “The investigating agency has failed to answer this objection of the applicant,” the judge said.
He also rejected the ED’s argument that “investigation is an art and sometimes an accused is lured with bail and pardon and some assurance to tell the story behind the crime.”
“If that is so, any person can be artfully implicated by obtaining material against him and put behind bars after removing the exculpatory material from the record. This scenario forces the court to conclude against the investigating agency that it is not acting without any bias,” the judge said.
The judge said that the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), appearing for the ED, talked about inducement to reveal the truth against other accused involved in the case.
“But the effect of this presentation is to convey the impression that the full truth cannot be revealed through individuals who have retracted their previous statements.
“Rather, the entire truth would be established on the basis of material, if any, available on record, which the investigating agency is bound to obtain in a legal manner while following procedural aspects,” the judge said.
The judge said the allegations against Kejriwal came up during the subsequent statements of some co-accused. He said it was also an admitted fact that he has not been summoned by the court after his arrest and is “in judicial custody at the instance of the ED on the pretext that the investigation is still going on.”
“Prima facie, the guilt of the accused is not yet established. With regard to the condition of not getting involved in any crime after being released on bail, the applicant has already admitted this in his application. Further, if bail is granted, it will be conditional, thereby binding the applicant in this regard,” the judge said.
He said it is also worth noting that in cases under PMLA, obtaining bail becomes an impossible task as the investigating agency on one pretext or the other gives its own reasons thereby putting the accused in almost the same position as a convict who has no hope of being released from the gloomy atmosphere of prison.
On Thursday, the judge had ordered Kejriwal’s release on bail on a personal bond of Rs one lakh. However, before granting the relief, the judge also imposed certain conditions on the AAP leader, including that he will not try to obstruct the investigation or influence witnesses.
The judge had also directed Kejriwal to appear in the court whenever required and cooperate in the investigation.
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, soon after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him protection from arrest on his plea challenging the summons issued to him.
On May 10, the Supreme Court granted Kejriwal interim bail till June 1 to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections and said he would have to surrender and return to jail on June 2. He has been in jail since then.
