NEW DELHI: In a big setback to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday suspended the bail order passed in his favour by the district court, by coming down heavily upon the vacation judge for not considering material on record and terming the Enforcement Directorate's action against him as mala fide, contrary to the High Court's decision.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain allowed the Enforcement Directorate's plea for suspension of bail order, saying the vacation Judge did not appropriately consider the materials on record in the liquor policy scam case.
While pronouncing the order, Justice Jain said, "The observation by the trial court that voluminous material cannot be considered is totally unjustified and it shows that the trial court has not applied its mind to the material."
It also said the vacation court ought to give adequate opportunity to the Enforcement Directorate to argue the bail application.
Also Read: Delhi HC to pronounce order on ED plea seeking stay on Kejriwal’s bail today
"There was a strong argument that the twin condition of Section 45 PMLA was not deliberated by the vacation judge. This court is of the opinion that Section 45 PMLA has not been properly discussed by the trial court," the bench said.
The court also pointed out the most important point was the Additional Solicitor General had referred to para 27 of the trial court order where the judge talked about mala fide by the ED.
"But this court is of the opinion that a coordinate bench of this court has said there was no mala fide on the part of the ED. The trial court should not have given any finding which is opposite to the finding of the High Court," the bench said.
The court also noted the trial court has not dealt with the argument of Section 70 PMLA as well.
"This court is also of the opinion that the Supreme Court granted bail to Kejriwal for Lok Sabha. Once his plea challenging arrest has been dismissed by the High Court it cannot be said that his personal liberty was curtailed in violation of the law," the bench said.
On June 24, the Supreme Court had declined to grant any relief to Kejriwal.
The apex court, however, had fixed the matter for consideration on Wednesday.
The High Court had on Friday reserved the judgement on the ED's plea for stay appeal.
It had said until it delivered the order on ED's application, the bail order would remain stayed.
On June 20, in a relief to Kejriwal, Rouse Avenue Court's Vacation Judge Niyay Bindu passed the order granting him bail in the case.
However, on June 21, the ED rushed to the High Court as the district court's judge had rejected a request for stay for 48 hours to file an appeal.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED, had argued that the trial court's bail order was "perverse" as it was contrary to the mandate of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
He also claimed the trial court had not given sufficient opportunity to the ED to represent its case.
Kejriwal's counsel claimed the trial judge had granted bail through a reseasoned order.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singvhi, appearing for Kejriwal, said that the ED's approach was "deplorable".
Kejriwal had remained on interim bail by the Supreme Court's order on May 10 for campaign during the general elections. However, he surrendered on June 2 as per the apex court's order. The top court however had then said he can approach the trial court for bail.
He was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21.
.jpg)
