NEW DELHI: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was set to be out on bail for the second time after being arrested in the alleged liquor policy case. But before the order was even uploaded, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) hastily moved to the Delhi High Court against the trial court order and sought an urgent hearing.
Throughout the day, a vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain heard the heated arguments between the councils of the probe agency and the Aam Aadmi Party chief and reserved its order.For now, the high court has put an interim stay on Rouse Avenue court’s bail decision and Kejriwal will have to stay in jail. The high court said it was reserving the order for 2-3 days as it wanted to go through the entire records.
Meanwhile, it has also issued notice to Kejriwal seeking his response on ED’s plea challenging the trial court’s June 20 order by which he was granted bail. It listed the plea for hearing on July 10.
‘Trial court order perverse’: ED
The Enforcement Directorate, which moved for urgent hearing in high court challenging bail order which was passed late Thursday evening, contended that the trial court’s order was “perverse”, “one-sided” and “wrong-sided”.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, claimed that the findings were based on irrelevant facts. The relevant facts, he claimed, were not considered by the special judge.
“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,” he argued.
He also contended that the probe agency was not given adequate opportunity to argue its case.
During the arguments, Raju also told the high court that when the ED lawyers urged the trial court to keep its order in abeyance for 48 hours to enable them to approach superior courts, the prayer was not considered.
“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,” Raju contended, adding, “I am making the allegations with full seriousness.”
Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) says an opportunity must be granted to the public prosecutor to present his case but that opportunity was not granted to me, he contended.
He said the trial court did not even look at his reply on the ground that it was bulky and claimed that the trial court came to a conclusion that there was malafide on ED’s part after considering wrong facts and wrong dates.
He further contended that the trial court’s findings contradicted those of the high court, which had upheld Kejriwal’s arrest. Raju asserted that if irrelevant facts are considered, it constitutes a reason for the cancellation of bail. He pointed out that evidence of Kejriwal demanding Rs 100 crore was not taken into account by the trial court.
“If irrelevant facts are considered, that itself is a reason for cancellation of bail. There is evidence that Kejriwal demanded Rs 100 crore but it was not considered by trial court,” he argued.
“End to end money trail was given by us,” he asserted, adding that proceeds of crime were utilised in the Goa assembly poll campaign by the AAP.
“End to end money trail was given by us,” Raju stated, emphasizing that the proceeds of crime were used by the AAP during their campaign for the Goa assembly elections. He explained that the ED had named AAP as an accused in the money laundering case, and the offences fall under section 70 of the PMLA, which pertains to companies. The ED had compared AAP to a company and Kejriwal to its director, Raju argued.
What team Kejriwal told high court
The probe agency’s plea for stay on Kejriwal’s bail was vehemently opposed by senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhari, representing the AAP leader. They said Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution does not exist for the ED for which the liberty of a person figured low in priority.
Singhvi said the ED argued for 3 hours and 45 minutes before the trial judge.
“This matter lasted for five hours (before the trial court). Nearly 3 hours 45 minutes were taken by Mr. Raju and then trial judge is faulted because she does not repeat every comma and full stop,” he said.
Singhvi urged the court not to stay Kejriwal’s bail order and said it may send him back to jail later if it finds overwhelming and cogent circumstances.
Singhvi criticised the ED’s attempt to tarnish the reputation of the trial court judge presiding over the bail hearing. He argued that the agency’s claim that the judge did not allocate sufficient time for their arguments and failed to consider relevant evidence was misguided and unfortunate.
Singhvi emphasised that the ED’s approach was deplorable and should never have originated from a government authority, especially in a case involving political antagonism. He clarified that a bail hearing should not be misconstrued, and the judge’s handling of the case should not be questioned simply because every detail was not addressed.
Advocate Chaudhari pointed out that Kejriwal’s surrender to the jail authorities upon the expiration of his interim bail demonstrated his good faith and compliance with the legal process. He argued that granting bail to Kejriwal with court-imposed conditions would not cause any prejudice or harm to society, as he is not a terrorist or a threat to public safety.
Chaudhari further questioned the potential consequences of allowing the chief minister of the state to be released on bail, suggesting that it would not have any detrimental impact on the proceedings or the society at large.
“If he is out with conditions imposed by the court, what is the prejudice. He is not a terrorist that he will harm the society if he is let out. What will happen if the chief minister of the state comes out on bail?” he argued.
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for now has to remain in jail for another few days till the high court judgement to be “delivered in two to three days”.
“Till pronouncement, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed,” the court said while putting an interim stay on the trial court decision granting bail to Kejriwal.
(With PTI inputs)
Throughout the day, a vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain heard the heated arguments between the councils of the probe agency and the Aam Aadmi Party chief and reserved its order.For now, the high court has put an interim stay on Rouse Avenue court’s bail decision and Kejriwal will have to stay in jail. The high court said it was reserving the order for 2-3 days as it wanted to go through the entire records.
Meanwhile, it has also issued notice to Kejriwal seeking his response on ED’s plea challenging the trial court’s June 20 order by which he was granted bail. It listed the plea for hearing on July 10.
‘Trial court order perverse’: ED
The Enforcement Directorate, which moved for urgent hearing in high court challenging bail order which was passed late Thursday evening, contended that the trial court’s order was “perverse”, “one-sided” and “wrong-sided”.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, claimed that the findings were based on irrelevant facts. The relevant facts, he claimed, were not considered by the special judge.
“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,” he argued.
He also contended that the probe agency was not given adequate opportunity to argue its case.
During the arguments, Raju also told the high court that when the ED lawyers urged the trial court to keep its order in abeyance for 48 hours to enable them to approach superior courts, the prayer was not considered.
“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,” Raju contended, adding, “I am making the allegations with full seriousness.”
Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) says an opportunity must be granted to the public prosecutor to present his case but that opportunity was not granted to me, he contended.
He said the trial court did not even look at his reply on the ground that it was bulky and claimed that the trial court came to a conclusion that there was malafide on ED’s part after considering wrong facts and wrong dates.
He further contended that the trial court’s findings contradicted those of the high court, which had upheld Kejriwal’s arrest. Raju asserted that if irrelevant facts are considered, it constitutes a reason for the cancellation of bail. He pointed out that evidence of Kejriwal demanding Rs 100 crore was not taken into account by the trial court.
“If irrelevant facts are considered, that itself is a reason for cancellation of bail. There is evidence that Kejriwal demanded Rs 100 crore but it was not considered by trial court,” he argued.
“End to end money trail was given by us,” he asserted, adding that proceeds of crime were utilised in the Goa assembly poll campaign by the AAP.
“End to end money trail was given by us,” Raju stated, emphasizing that the proceeds of crime were used by the AAP during their campaign for the Goa assembly elections. He explained that the ED had named AAP as an accused in the money laundering case, and the offences fall under section 70 of the PMLA, which pertains to companies. The ED had compared AAP to a company and Kejriwal to its director, Raju argued.
What team Kejriwal told high court
The probe agency’s plea for stay on Kejriwal’s bail was vehemently opposed by senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhari, representing the AAP leader. They said Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution does not exist for the ED for which the liberty of a person figured low in priority.
Singhvi said the ED argued for 3 hours and 45 minutes before the trial judge.
“This matter lasted for five hours (before the trial court). Nearly 3 hours 45 minutes were taken by Mr. Raju and then trial judge is faulted because she does not repeat every comma and full stop,” he said.
Singhvi urged the court not to stay Kejriwal’s bail order and said it may send him back to jail later if it finds overwhelming and cogent circumstances.
Singhvi criticised the ED’s attempt to tarnish the reputation of the trial court judge presiding over the bail hearing. He argued that the agency’s claim that the judge did not allocate sufficient time for their arguments and failed to consider relevant evidence was misguided and unfortunate.
Singhvi emphasised that the ED’s approach was deplorable and should never have originated from a government authority, especially in a case involving political antagonism. He clarified that a bail hearing should not be misconstrued, and the judge’s handling of the case should not be questioned simply because every detail was not addressed.
Advocate Chaudhari pointed out that Kejriwal’s surrender to the jail authorities upon the expiration of his interim bail demonstrated his good faith and compliance with the legal process. He argued that granting bail to Kejriwal with court-imposed conditions would not cause any prejudice or harm to society, as he is not a terrorist or a threat to public safety.
Chaudhari further questioned the potential consequences of allowing the chief minister of the state to be released on bail, suggesting that it would not have any detrimental impact on the proceedings or the society at large.
“If he is out with conditions imposed by the court, what is the prejudice. He is not a terrorist that he will harm the society if he is let out. What will happen if the chief minister of the state comes out on bail?” he argued.
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for now has to remain in jail for another few days till the high court judgement to be “delivered in two to three days”.
“Till pronouncement, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed,” the court said while putting an interim stay on the trial court decision granting bail to Kejriwal.
(With PTI inputs)
