Kejriwal’s bail was granted by the Lower court and challenged by ED in the High Court

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) went to the Delhi High Court to contest the bail given to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case linked to an excise scandal.

Describing it as a completely twisted decision, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) today went to the Delhi High Court to request the annulment of Delhi Chief Minister and AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal’s bail in the excise policy case. A lower court had granted Kejriwal relief on Thursday, allowing him to leave jail today. However, the Delhi High Court has put the order on hold until it reviews the case, prompting Kejriwal’s wife Sunita to state that the CM was being treated like a terrorist.

Background of the case against Arvind Kejriwal

Around three months back, Kejriwal was taken into custody by the ED in a money laundering case connected to the Delhi excise policy scandal, which is also under investigation by the CBI. Kejriwal has been held in Tihar Jail. Initially arrested on March 21, he was released on temporary bail last month to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections and then turned himself in on June 2.

The ED had previously claimed that Kejriwal was personally engaged in creating the recently annulled Delhi excise policy, which was devised with the intention of providing benefits to the South Group. The ED alleged that the South Group obtained unrestricted access, unfair advantages, acquired shares in well-known wholesale enterprises, and numerous retail areas, and paid Rs 100 crore to AAP leaders in exchange.

When Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari started defending Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, he mentioned that Kejriwal holds a very important position in the government. Chaudhari stressed that if you are going to accuse someone like him, you need to have really strong evidence. He emphasized that Kejriwal is not a criminal or someone who has broken any rules. He questioned whether it would cause chaos if the Chief Minister is released.

What did Kejriwal’s lawyer mention in favour of him?

Kejriwal’s lawyer, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, started talking in the case. The ED went to the Delhi High Court to challenge the trial court’s decision given on Thursday, granting bail to Kejriwal in the excise policy case.

Kejriwal’s lawyer, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, mentioned that the High Court focused on the issue of illegal arrest, not bail, which the ED seemed to forget conveniently. He clarified that both the High Court and Supreme Court were discussing section 19 of the PMLA regarding the legality of the arrest, not bail. He also pointed out that certain paragraphs are being misinterpreted to suggest that the trial court should not have ruled against them.

He further said that the ED doesn’t have a case and disagreed with calling different opinions ‘perversity’. He mentioned that Singhvi was talking about the ED’s comment on the lower court’s decision to grant bail to CM Kejriwal as totally perverse.

SV Raju, the Additional Solicitor General representing the ED, replied to the trial court’s comment that there was no direct proof against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Raju stated that that statement is incorrect. They had reviewed Magunta Reddy’s statement and highlighted that the CM had a meeting with Magunta Srinivasan Reddy and Reddy mentioned that Kejriwal asked for 100 crores. Raju expressed his surprise at the decision to grant bail to the CM.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, mentioned that no money can be linked to Kejriwal. He questioned why certain quotes from the Supreme Court were used in the trial court order and emphasized the importance of correct quoting. Singhvi also stated that accusations by co-accused are only significant if there is supporting evidence.

He finished talking in the Delhi High Court and mentioned that if Kejriwal is allowed to leave and the decision cannot be changed, where would he go and what would happen next? Singhvi emphasized that the High Court has the power to reverse the situation.

Comments of ASG Raju against Arvind Kejriwal

ASG SV Raju, who speaks for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), started by saying the decision was wrong and brought up Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

He mentioned that the approver’s statement and how trustworthy he is as a witness should not be discussed when deciding on bail. Raju explained that credibility should not be considered at the bail stage, but the trial court did not take this into account. He highlighted that there are statements under section 50 PMLA that can be used as evidence. Additionally, Raju stated that they are also using documentary evidence to support their case.

In the court session, the lawyer for the ED further mentioned that the Aam Aadmi Party was accused in the excise policy case for using money from illegal activities in the Goa elections. According to section 70 PMLA, anyone in charge of the company’s affairs (like AAP) can be held responsible. That’s why they consider Kejriwal guilty.

He added that they presented evidence to the trial court about Rs 45 crore being used in the Goa elections. However, the court found that they couldn’t prove how the money was spent. Raju mentioned that the trial judge admitted to not reading the papers. He questioned how the judge could say the papers were irrelevant if they hadn’t been read, emphasizing that the decision should be based on this fact alone.

Raju also mentioned that the Supreme Court didn’t clear Arvind Kejriwal of any accusations when granting him temporary bail. Even though the Supreme Court didn’t give a clean chit, the High Court based its decision on this temporary bail.

He said that this is the perfect situation for cancelling the bail given to Arvind Kejriwal. This statement came after Kejriwal was granted bail by a lower court in the excise policy case. Raju mentioned that the decision should show that there are good reasons to believe that Kejriwal is innocent. There should be some discussion about his innocence, which is missing in this case.

He also said that just because someone holds an important position like a minister doesn’t automatically mean they should be granted bail and added if that were the case, every minister would get bail easily. He further spoke that the ignorance of important facts and the consideration of irrelevant information can cancel the bail.

In response to S V Raju’s argument, the Delhi High Court asked whether he is saying that the trial court did not look at all the details mentioned in the High Court’s judgment by a single judge.

Solicitor General S V Raju said that at first, they challenged Chief Minister Kejriwal’s arrest, but the court that remanded him confirmed it was correct. Kejriwal then went to the High Court (HC), where one judge agreed that the arrest was valid.

Raju mentioned that the High Court addressed all the points from the April 9 judgment, but the trial court’s order didn’t consider them. He stressed that decisions about arrests are usually final unless the Supreme Court changes them. So, the High Court’s decision stands. The High Court said there was no bad intention, but the special judge thought differently based on the same facts.

Solicitor General S V Raju mentioned that in the trial court order, it was stated in paragraph 27 that there were some clear facts presented by the applicant. These facts showed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had evidence against the accused in July 2022 but only called him in August 2023, implying bad intentions on the part of the ED. Raju believes this is an incorrect conclusion in the trial court order.

He spoke that instead of reviewing the documents properly to find the correct date, the trial court jumped to the conclusion of bad intentions without thorough examination.

Solicitor General S V Raju said that during the reply, Kejriwal’s lawyer argued in detail. He mentioned that the speed at which the hearings happened didn’t give the Enforcement Directorate (ED) enough time to present and discuss all the evidence against Kejriwal. He argued that the decision should be overturned because it violated the first essential right under Section 45.

He also criticized the challenged decision by saying that the trial court said the documents submitted were not important. He questioned how they can say that without even looking at them. He added that this shows the decision is wrong because they didn’t review the evidence.

Vikram Chaudhari, a top lawyer, looked at the temporary decision from the Supreme Court about bail. The Delhi High Court mentioned that there wouldn’t be a set time for arguments, making sure everyone gets fair treatment.

On Friday, Sunita Kejriwal commented on the stay order regarding Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, saying that they are treating Arvind Kejriwal as if he is the most wanted criminal in India. 

Immediate plans of Kejriwal after being released

After being released from Tihar Jail, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s immediate plan involves dealing with various administrative and political matters. His release came after being granted bail in the excise policy case, following an initial denial of interim bail.

One of the main priorities is to implement a Rs 1,000 aid program for women who are not in the tax bracket, a significant commitment from the budget. The program’s blueprint was in the final stages before his arrest on March 21, with plans for execution around October-November.

Kejriwal also needs to address the delayed Mayoral elections, originally set for April but postponed due to his arrest. Furthermore, he has to organize a meeting of the National Capital Civil Services Authority (NCCSA) to tackle pending bureaucratic matters and transfers, including appointing a new Divisional Commissioner. These tasks underscore the substantial responsibilities awaiting his return.