No relief to Kejriwal from SC on his plea challenging HC order on stay of his bail, heres what the court said

NEW DELHI: In a setback to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider his plea, challenging the Delhi High Court's June 21 stay order on his bail in the liquor policy scam case.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and S V N Bhatti refused to pass any immediate order on Kejriwal's plea, and scheduled it for consideration on Wednesday, June 26 in order to let the Delhi High Court pass the formal order.

"What we propose to do is, let the Delhi HC order come on record and we can keep the case next week. Without the order how do we proceed," the bench initially asked Kejriwal's counsel.

The Delhi High Court had on June 21 reserved the order, on the ED's plea for stay on the bail granted to Kejriwal by a trial court. The HC had then said it would pronounce the order in two-three days.

Read Also: Supreme Court to Hear Arvind Kejriwals Plea on Delhi Excise Policy Bail Stay on June 26

Senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, questioned the Delhi High Court order granting stay on bail on the first day of hearing.

"Why cant the petitioner be free till the High Court gives its order. He is not a flight risk," the counsel said.

"If the HC can pass an order at 10:30 am without seeing the (trial court) order, then why cannot the SC also stay the HC order without the judgment," he submitted.

On this, the bench said if the HC did a mistake, why should we repeat it?

The counsel also submitted that the HC order was passed without any reasons.

"We had given a compilation of 10 judgments of SC that the bail once granted cannot be stayed without special reasons," he said.

Singhvi also said that the bail granted and bail reversal was completely different.

Read Also: Kejriwal moves SC against Delhi HC order blocking his release in Liquor Policy case; plea seeking urgent hearing likely to be mentioned today

"The procedure of staying bail on first day is unprecedented. Balance of convenience is in my favour," Singhvi said.

Senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari, also for Kejriwal, submitted that in five hours of hearing in the trial court, more than three hours were taken by the ED.

"So how come they (ED) are not given an opportunity to argue in the case, as claimed by them. It is wrong to say so," he said.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED, contended that it was a fit case for stay of bail. The trial court order was perverse.

During the hearing, the bench asked, "Has the district court recorded prima facie satisfaction under Section 45 of the PMLA?"

Responding to this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also for the ED said, "The court has said, the bail order has to be passed, who has time to go through papers! The order was violative of Section 45."

"The court was a vacation judge for two days. To form the satisfaction, the court has to go through the record of the case. However, the court starts by saying it is a high profile case and records in the order "who has the time to go through the record of the case?," he said.

After hearing the counsel, the bench said, "Let the HC order come on record. Let us have it a day after tomorrow. We are not expressing anything on merit."

The bench also orally observed, "It is a bit unusual (to have reserved order on stay) because normally the stay order is passed on the date of hearing."

A vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain had on Friday, June 21 stayed the trial court's order of granting Kejriwal the bail and reserved the judgement on the ED's appeal.

The HC had said that it would pass the order on ED's stay appeal in 2-3 days.

On June 20, in a relief to Kejriwal, Rouse Avenue Court's Vacation Judge Niyay Bindu passed the order granting him bail.

However, on June 21, the ED moved the High Court as the district court had rejected a request for stay on bail for 48 hours to file an appeal.

Kejriwal was earlier granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on May 10 for campaign during the Lok Sabha polls. He had surrendered on June 2 as per the apex court's order. The apex court however had then said he can approach the trial court for bail.

He was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate following a raid at his residence on March 21.