Delhi High Court Temporarily Halts Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail Until Final Decision on ED’s Stay Request
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has temporarily stayed the bail granted to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case related to the controversial liquor policy. This decision will remain in effect until a final ruling is made on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) application to stay the bail order.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, presiding over a vacation bench, issued the stay order while acknowledging the urgency of the matter brought forth by the ED. The court has reserved its decision for a few days, maintaining the status quo on Kejriwal’s bail until the final pronouncement.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
ED’s Perspective
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, representing Kejriwal, initially opposed the listing of the case during the court’s vacation, arguing that the detailed bail order from the trial court should suffice. However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, contended that the bail order contradicted Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He argued that the trial judge did not allow the ED sufficient opportunity to present their case and labeled the bail order as “perverse.”
The ED’s primary contention was that the trial court dismissed their comprehensive reply as “bulky” and thus did not properly consider the evidence presented. The ASG emphasized that direct evidence, such as statements implicating Kejriwal in demanding bribes, was disregarded by the trial court, which erroneously concluded a lack of direct evidence.
Kejriwal’s Defense
On behalf of Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi criticized the ED’s approach, asserting that the accused cannot be held indefinitely while the investigation is ongoing. Singhvi argued that the ED had ample time to present its case during the bail hearing and that the bail order should not be stayed based on unsubstantiated claims. He highlighted that the Supreme Court had already granted Kejriwal the liberty to seek bail from the trial court.
Singhvi also questioned the necessity of staying the bail order, suggesting that such an action would be equivalent to cancelling the bail without a thorough hearing. He emphasized that the trial court’s discretionary order, based on the merits of the case, should not be interfered with by the High Court at this preliminary stage.
Implications and Next Steps
The High Court’s temporary stay on Kejriwal’s bail adds a new dimension to the ongoing legal battle surrounding the liquor policy case. The court’s final decision on the ED’s stay application will be crucial in determining the immediate legal status of the Delhi Chief Minister. As the case progresses, both sides await a detailed hearing and the court’s comprehensive judgment on the matter.
