New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear on Wednesday Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwals plea against the Delhi High Courts order staying the Rouse Avenue Courts order granting him bail in a liquor policy money laundering case.
The matter will be heard by a vacation bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti. On Monday, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter to today, observing that the High Court has reserved its order.
Kejriwal has challenged the interim order passed by the Delhi High Court delivered last Friday.
Meanwhile, Kejriwal was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the liquor policy case being probed by the CBI and will be present in Rouse Avenue Court for remand proceedings.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday allowed the Enforcement Directorates (ED) plea and stayed the Rouse Avenue Courts order granting bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
Also Read: Delhi HC to pronounce order on ED plea seeking stay on Kejriwals bail today
A vacation bench of Delhi HCs Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that other arguments related to EDs plea against the trial court order will be considered by the roster bench. However, it stayed the operation of the trial courts order granting bail to Kejriwal, observing that documents and arguments were not properly appreciated.
The HC also noted EDs arguments questioning the trial court order, whereby it was highlighted that the findings of the lower court were contrary to earlier findings of the High Court regarding EDs claims of malafide.
The High Court said that the trial court should not have given any findings opposite to the findings of the High Court.
The High Court also noted that the mandatory conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were not properly discussed in the trial courts order. The High Court also noted that interim bail was given to Kejriwal for the general elections.
On June 21, the Delhi High Court reserved the order and put on hold the trial courts order granting bail to Kejriwal until it decided on the EDs plea seeking a stay on the Rouse Avenue Courts order. The HC said it was staying the trial courts order for two to three days and reserved the order on the EDs plea.
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Courts decision to put on hold for two to three days the trial courts order granting him bail in the liquor policy case. However, the Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the matter to Wednesday, observing that the Delhi HC will decide in a few days.
The HC order came on the EDs plea challenging the trial court order. The trial court on Thursday granted bail to Kejriwal, observing that the ED had failed to provide any direct evidence against Kejriwal in respect of the proceeds of the crime.
However, this fact, among others, was denied by the ED in the Delhi High Court, which called the trial courts order perverse, claiming the lower court did not give the probe agency a proper opportunity to present its arguments.
Justifying its argument against Kejriwal, the ED said that if an offence is committed by AAP, the person responsible for its conduct will also be responsible due to the principle of vicarious liability. The probe agency argued that if AAP committed an offence with the consent and connivance of Kejriwal, he shall also be deemed guilty.
The ED argued that the trial courts order had serious procedural irregularities.
On the other hand, Kejriwals lawyer defended the trial courts order and opposed the EDs plea seeking a stay on the order.
The trial court, in its order copy, said, ED is silent on certain issues raised by the applicant (Kejriwal) such as that he was not named either in the CBI case or in the ECIR FIR. The allegations against Kejriwal surfaced after the subsequent statements of certain co-accused, the trial court noted. It further observed that it is an admitted fact that the accused Kejriwal has not been summoned by the court to date, yet he is lying in judicial custody at the instance of ED on the pretext of the investigation still going on.
ED has not shown anything on record that Vijay Nair was acting upon the directions of the applicant. It has also failed to establish that even if Vinod Chauhan has close relations with Charanpreet, how that helps ED establish the guilt of the applicant (Kejriwal), even if the applicant is acquainted with both of these co-accused. ED has also failed to clarify how it concluded that the sum of rupees one crore attached from Vinod Chauhan was part of the proceeds of the crime. ED is also not clarifying how the alleged amount of rupees 40 crores being traced during the investigation is part of the proceeds of the crime. It seems that ED also believes that the evidence on record is not sufficient to proceed against the applicant and is taking time to procure the same to convince the court regarding the availability of evidence against the applicant. The investigating agency should be prompt and fair to ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed, the trial court said in its order copy.
Countering the trial court decision, ED argued in Delhi HC that the probe agencys case is that Kejriwal is guilty of money laundering on two counts: one in his individual capacity for demanding money and the other as he is vicariously liable because AAP is guilty of the offence of money laundering. ED has claimed that Aam Aadmi Party used this money in the election campaign of AAP candidates and events.
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 in connection with a money laundering case related to alleged irregularities in the liquor policy case. However, he managed to get interim bail from the Supreme Court on May 10 in view of the Lok Sabha polls. He surrendered on June 2 after his interim bail period expired.
.webp)
