NEW DELHI: After a concession by the Enforcement Directorate, the Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to AAP leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh in connection with the money laundering case related to the Delhi liquor scam case.
Also Read - SC stays criminal defamation trial against AAP MP Sanjay Singh in Gujarat court
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED, said that the central probe agency had no objections if Singh is released on bail in proceedings arising out of FIR and in PMLA case.
His response came after a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and P B Varale asked him to take instructions as six months had passed since arrest and no money was recovered from him.
Upon Raju's concession, the bench said, "We are granting bail to Sanjay Singh. He is to be released during the pendency of trial. He can continue his political activities."
The Enforcement Directorate had Singh on October 4, 2023.
The court, however, asked Singh not to give any comments about his role or anything related to the Delhi liquor scam.
In its order, the bench said, "In view of statement made, we allow the present appeal (bail matter) and direct that Sanjay Singh be released on bail during pendency of trial on terms and conditions set by the trial court."
Singh challenged an order of the Delhi High Court, which had dismissed his bail plea in a money laundering case.
The ED claimed Singhs associates, Vivek Tyagi, Ajit Tyagi, and Sarvesh Mishra had close relations with key accused Dinesh Arora.
Also Read - SC notice to ED on plea by AAP leader and RS MP Sanjay Singh for bail
It also alleged Singh had allegedly received proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs 2 Cr in the liquor scam on two occasions.
During the hearing, senior advocate A M Singhvi submitted that Arora had made several exculpatory statements before naming Singh and finally got released on bail after the ED did not object to it.
The bench asked ASG Raju, Take instructions, whether you really require him after six months. Keep in view the role attributed to him will be a subject matter of trial.
The bench also noted that for the first 10 statements (by Dinesh Arora), there is no implication of Singh.
Please keep in mind if we are with him. We are required to record in terms of section 45 (PMLA) that prima facie he has not committed an offence, that could have its own ramifications in the trial. You have kept him in custody for six months, please obtain instructions on whether further detention is necessary or not, the bench asked Raju.
The bench also noted, The fact is that Dinesh Arora initially had not implicated him (Singh), but later on in the 10th statement he does. There is a slight change in his version. When we look at Sections 45 and 19 (PMLA), we have to take these factors into account, it has to be tested when he comes to the witness box.
The bench also noted, Six months he has been in custody, nothing has been recovered, no money has been recovered. The trace of money is not there.
Raju sought to explain the absence of traces of money.
However, the bench clarified that the court is not going into that question at this stage but the fact of the matter is money has not been recovered and asked Raju to take instructions on the matter.
On November 21, 2023, the apex court had issued notice to the ED on his plea against the Delhi high court judgment of October 20, 2023 which had declined to interfere with his arrest in the case.
