Delhi High Court has stayed CM Arvind Kejriwal’s bail and release. High Court reserved the decision on ED’s application on Friday evening and said that Arvind Kejriwal will remain in jail for now. In this way, the High Court rejected the bail granted by the trial court within 24 hours. Now the debate will start once again in the High Court and the decision can come in two to three days.
CM Kejriwal is accused of money laundering
Let us tell you that CM Kejriwal was accused of money laundering by ED in the liquor scam case. On Thursday, in the trial court, vacation judge Nyay Bindu, after hearing the arguments of both the parties, granted bail to CM Kejriwal and also said that he can be released on bail on a bond of 1 lakh.
High Court had stayed the bail on Friday morning
But on Friday morning itself, ED argued in the High Court against the decision of the trial court. When the case went to the High Court, the court first stayed Kejriwal’s bail and then on the basis of the arguments that went on throughout the day, the decision on the stay order was reserved on Friday evening as well. The effect of this decision will be that CM Kejriwal is not getting released from Tihar right now. The court will now hear the matter in detail and then a decision will be taken on whether he will get bail or not. The High Court has maintained the stay order for now. The trial court’s order has been stayed for a week.
No time given for arguments in the lower court: ED
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has challenged Arvind Kejriwal’s bail order in the Delhi High Court, on which the hearing was held today. A vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain and Ravinder Dudeja heard the case. The court had stayed the bail order till the hearing of the case. The lawyer appearing on behalf of the ED had said that we were not given enough time to argue on this matter in the lower court. What happened in the court after this, know here…
ED’s arguments were not paid attention to: ASG
ASG Raju, while reading Magunta Reddy’s statement, said that the trial court did not pay attention to the arguments made by ED. He said, ‘I am surprised that despite submitting a written note, the court is saying that ED could not investigate the case. The lower court’s order states that ED failed to provide direct evidence. We have provided direct evidence.’
Questions raised on bail decision
ASG Raju, while arguing, said, ‘The lower court’s order is shocking. We have the statement of the man in the liquor policy case who has said that we have given Rs 100 crores but the court is saying that this is not a proceed of crime. In this case, not much was heard on section 45 PMLA. How does section 45 PMLA apply in this case. In such a situation, how has bail been granted, that too without listening to the argument.’
The court said this
On this argument, the bench said, ‘So you are making two-three arguments – you were not heard and Section 45 PMLA was not acted upon properly and the findings of the High Court were not considered.’ ASG Raju said, ‘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.’
The lower court did not give us a chance to oppose the bail: ED
ASG Raju said, ‘It is not at all fair that time was not given to file written submissions’. The ED has cited Section 45 of PMLA. ASG said, ‘It is a necessary condition in this that the court, while hearing the bail application, gives full opportunity to the government lawyer to present his arguments. But this did not happen in this case. The lower court did not give us full opportunity to oppose the bail. ASG said that the real issues were never raised by Kejriwal, but in response he raised completely new issues. After the reply, I was not given any chance.’
ED’s argument
ASG Raju said that our case is very strong. He opposed the presence of Singhvi. ED has said in its SLP that releasing Kejriwal at a crucial stage of the investigation will affect the investigation because Kejriwal holds an important position like the Chief Minister.
What is the basis for rejecting bail? ASG gave this argument
ASG SV Raju said what kind of order is this? There is direct evidence of this. The statement of witnesses has revealed that Kejriwal said give me Rs 100 crore. This is the proceeds of crime. We have traced Rs 45 crore. We have shown how money was used in the Goa elections. Still the court says that ED does not have concrete evidence to show. ASG SV Raju said that there can be no bigger distortion than a judge who admits that I have not read the entire papers and I am granting bail, the bail order can be rejected on this basis.
Is holding a constitutional post a basis for bail?
The ASG argued that Kejriwal is vicariously liable because the AAP party is guilty of the offence of money laundering. Because the Aam Aadmi Party used the money obtained from the proceeds of crime in election campaigns for its candidates and their programs. Every person responsible for conducting the affairs of the AAP party would be guilty of the offence of money laundering. Is sitting on a constitutional chair a ground for bail? Its meaning
