Arvind Kejriwal News: The joy of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal getting bail has been put on hold for the time being.
The Delhi High Court has accepted the plea of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and has stayed Kejriwal’s release till the hearing is over.
On Thursday evening, the vacation bench of the special court at Rouse Avenue had granted bail to Kejriwal.
The vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain is hearing the case.
After hearing the preliminary arguments of the ED, the court asked to list the case for immediate hearing.
The court also called for a copy of the order and the file from the lower court. Also, the implementation of the bail order was stayed till the hearing was completed.
What are the arguments of ED
After the hearing started in the court at 1 pm, Arvind Kejriwal’s lawyer Vikram Chaudhary expressed his objection to the ED’s comment on the decision of Judge Nyay Bindu.
He said that the Supreme Court had granted bail to Kejriwal for some time. The trial court judge has mentioned the order… Why was there a hurry to raise this matter before the vacation bench. Chaudhary said that the Supreme Court said that he has not been convicted.
He has no criminal background and the case is pending for a long time… there is no question of stay. On this the court said, ‘We will listen to you. Everyone should get equal opportunity. First let Mr. Raju start. We will listen to you too.’
The ASG said that he was not heard properly. The SSG said, ‘On this basis, the trial court’s order should be rejected. Please see the trial court’s order. The court did not hear us.
The documents given by us were not seen and it was said that there are too many. The court said that voluminous documents have been filed. This cannot lead to a distorted order.’
ED said that the court did not see the documents. It is the responsibility of the court to consider the documents. How can you say that these are not relevant without seeing them.
ASG said that even on the wrong statement made by the applicant (Kejriwal), the court said that it is non-disputed. He further said, ‘It is written in the trial court order that the ECIR is of 22 August 2022, but it was registered in July 2022.
We had given notes with all the dates, but it was not considered.’
ASG said that the decision of the honourable court (High Court) was not considered. A single judge said that the arrest is wrong, there is nothing wrong in it.
This court had rejected the point of arrest with bad intention. On this, the judge sought the order of the High Court. He said that some facts were not ignored even by the Supreme Court.
He said, ‘In Sanjay Singh’s case, the Supreme Court said that the trial court can consider bail without being influenced by the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court did not say this.’
ED said that the High Court said that there was no bad intention, but the trial court said that the intention was wrong.
This is contrary to the order of the High Court. The ASG said that the High Court had demolished the arguments of bad intention in its order, which is binding on the trial court.
The ASG said that if irrelevant material has been considered for bail, then it can be rejected. There are many such decisions.
After the lunch break, ASG continued his arguments and said-
The order said that ED could not provide direct evidence. We have given direct evidence. This is Manguta Reddy’s statement.
You can decide against me, but do not give wrong facts. ED said, ‘What kind of decision is this? This is direct evidence. The person is saying that Kejriwal asked me to give 100 crores. This is a crime.’
What was said on behalf of Kejriwal
ASG completed his arguments. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi started presenting his side on behalf of the defense.
Singhvi, while presenting his side, said that the arguments on the bail plea in the lower court went on for five hours.
ASG Raju took about 3 hours 45 minutes and then the trial judge is being blamed. Singhvi said that the ED is completely biased. There is complete bias in every argument, every presentation.
Singhvi said- If SC said that the arrest is wrong, bail is natural. Secondly, Justice Sharma (High Court) had said in her order that she was hearing the case of arrest and not bail. ED argued on this for more than 20 minutes but forgot to mention it.
Singhvi said that the Supreme Court had clearly said that you can go to the trial court for bail.
My question is that if Justice Sharma’s decision was final as suggested by the ED, then why did the Supreme Court give this clear freedom.
Secondly, if the proceedings of illegal arrest can be combined with bail as the ED is doing, then why did the Supreme Court differentiate between going on bail and reserving the order on illegal arrest. Singhvi said that I want to end this issue by asking myself why did the ED spend 20 minutes on this.
They went to Sanjay Singh’s case. Thank God they did not go to Sisodia’s case. There is a complete misunderstanding about the way the trial court’s decision is written and read.
Singhvi said- In such a case, stay means cancellation of bail. Every time it is said that the trial court did not note or consider that argument.
The trial court does not need to write an essay. There is no distortion in this. ED is trying to circumvent the law. Singhvi appealed not to impose a stay and said that this will send me (Kejriwal) to jail again.
ED said- witness had met Kejriwal
The ASG said that in this case where Section 45 PMLA is involved, the trial court has no discretion. The court has to give a prima facie conclusion that he is not guilty of the offence.
Para 15 of the special court’s order is contrary to Section 45 PMLA. There is no discretion in granting bail. The ASG said in his arguments that we have given all this evidence.
As the visitor register of the CM’s residence confirms that the witness met him. The ASG said that he will show how perverse and imbalanced the order is.
The ASG said that the trial court is relying on the order of Satendra Antil. This case cannot be relied upon. He said that it should be found that he is not guilty. There is no such conclusion. There cannot be a better case than this to cancel the bail.
The SG said that sitting on a constitutional chair is the basis for bail. This means that every minister will get bail. You are the CM, so you will get bail. Nothing can be more perverse than this.
The ASG said that the trial court relied on the Supreme Court order in which Kejriwal was released on interim bail. He said that while the Supreme Court itself has said that this order cannot be trusted. The Supreme Court had said that the CM cannot go to the secretariat.
ED said- It is wrong to grant bail for not being able to trace Rs 55 crore
The ASG continued his argument saying that we have traced Rs 45 crore and showed how it was used in the Goa elections, yet the conclusion is that we have not been able to show how the money was used.
He said that a prosecution complaint has been filed against him. The non-traceability of the remaining Rs 55 crore earned from crime cannot be a ground for bail. This is completely wrong.
The ASG said that he is arguing on the stay application. The ASG said that there cannot be a more wrong order than a judge who believes that I have not read the papers and has granted bail. On this basis alone, the order should be quashed.
ED said- Kejriwal guilty of money laundering in two cases
Claiming that Kejriwal was involved in a double case, the ASG said that every person responsible for conducting the business and affairs of AAP would be guilty of the crime of money laundering. Citing section 70 of PMLA, the ASG said that our case is that Kejriwal is guilty of money laundering in two cases.
First is in his personal capacity where he personally demanded a bribe of Rs 100 crore. Second, he is vicariously liable because he is the convenor of Aam Aadmi Party and since AAP is also accused of money laundering in this case, Kejriwal is also guilty for the crime money used for AAP.
On the absence of advocate Abhishek Mun Singhvi in the hearing of this case, senior advocate Chaudhary again said that Singhvi is not able to participate in the proceedings because the VC meeting is full.
On this, the ASG jokingly said that then he should not participate. Those who are already involved in the hearing cannot be removed. Because it is their right.
The High Court bench asked the ASG whether the debate is over or you still want to continue. On this, the ASG said that he has many other points to argue.
These facts have to be presented. He said that the bench would be shocked to see how the crime of money laundering has been committed.
On this, the bench said that the argument is that all the points raised by you have not been considered by the trial court. The ASG replied to this that they have not been considered at all.
Before listing, ED said- we were not heard properly in the lower court
ASG SV Raju, appearing for the ED, said, “We want an immediate hearing. The order was pronounced at 8 pm last night.
The order was not uploaded. We were not given a fair chance to challenge the bail.” The ASG said that all his arguments were not heard, he was asked by the trial court to finish the matter quickly.
Arvind Kejriwal’s lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared through video conferencing, expressed his objection and said that this is very unfortunate. Continuing his arguments, the ASG said that he was not allowed to give written information.
The ED said that the prayer for stay on the bail order was also not considered. Raju said, ‘My demand is that the order be stayed and the case be heard as soon as possible. I am alleging with all seriousness that we were not given a fair opportunity to present our arguments.’
Judge Nyaya Bindu had granted bail, did not give 48 hours time to ED
Arvind Kejriwal, who was arrested on March 21 in the alleged liquor scam, was granted bail by Special Judge Justice Bindu.
After the order was passed, the ED, arguing to challenge the bail in the High Court, requested the special court that the signing of the bail bond could be postponed for 48 hours.
But Judge Justice Bindu rejected this plea of ED and refused to stay the order. The court said that the bail bond can be presented before the duty judge on Friday.
Read More: