AAP convener and Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal will have to remain in jail for now as the Delhi High Court on Friday halted his anticipated release on bail after an urgent petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) just hours before he was set to leave Tihar jail.
The court said it was reserving the order for 2-3 days as it wanted to go through the entire records. The High Court is expected to pronounce its verdict by June 25, with the Delhi Chief Minister remaining in judicial custody.
Kejriwal, who was arrested on March 21 by the ED could have walked out of Tihar jail on Friday had the high court not granted the interim relief to the ED.
The vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said it would take two-three days to pronounce the order on ED's stay application. The court said till it heard the probe agency's petition, which could take another 2-3 days, Kejriwal would remain in jail. The High Court has asked the Kejriwal’s counsel to file the written submissions by Monday.
“In the meantime the petitioner and the respondent shall be at the liberty to file written submissions latest by Monday,” court noted in the order.
Vacation judge Niyay Bindu on Thursday granted bail to Kejriwal and ordered his release subject to bail bond of `one lakh, saying the ED has failed to give any direct evidence linking Kejriwal to the proceeds of the crime and has also failed to show that another accused, Vijay Nair, was acting on Kejriwal's behalf.
Kejriwal’s wife Sunita Kejriwal accused the ED of treating the Delhi CM as if he were the "most wanted terrorist in India." Her remarks came during a gathering in south Delhi's Bhogal, where Delhi Water Minister Atishi commenced an indefinite hunger strike to demand more water from Haryana. AAP leader and Delhi Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj said what the ED said about the trial court judge who granted bail to Kejriwal during High Court proceedings was “shameful.” “The ED is not being able to submit any proof to the courts… the AAP has been saying this consistently — this has also been noted in the trial court order ,” Bharadwaj said.
Earlier, Additional solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju presented the plea to Justices Sudhir Kumar Jain and Ravinder Dudeja, who were overseeing the matter during the court's vacation period called the trial court's decision as “perverse”, lopsided, “one-sided” and “wrong-sided” and that the findings were based on irrelevant facts. The relevant facts, he claimed, were not considered by the special judge.
The ASG said the trial court arrived on the decision based on wrong facts. "On wrong facts, wrong dates, you come to a conclusion that mala fide. But why, the reason is missing. My note not considered, not allowed to argue. The arrest was challenged. The remanding court said the arrest was correct. It was challenged before this court. The single judge said nothing wrong with the arrest," he said.
“Material facts were not considered by the trial court. There cannot be a better case for cancellation of bail than this one. There cannot be greater perversity than this,” he argued. Seeking a stay on the trial court's order, he contended that the ED was not given adequate opportunity to argue its case.
During the arguments, Raju said after the order was passed, when the ED lawyers urged the trial court to keep its order in abeyance for 48 hours to enable them to approach superior courts, the prayer was not considered.
“I was not allowed to argue fully. I was not given proper time of 2-3 days to file written submissions. This is not done. On merits, I have an excellent case. The trial court said finish off in half an hour as it wanted to deliver the judgment. It did not give us full opportunity to argue the case,” he contended, adding, “I am making the allegations with full seriousness.” Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) says an opportunity must be granted to the public prosecutor to present his case but that opportunity was not granted to me, he contended.
He said the trial court did not even look at his reply on the ground that it was bulky and claimed that the trial court came to a conclusion that there was malafide on ED's part after considering wrong facts and wrong dates. Raju contended that the trial court has given findings which are contrary to those of the high court while upholding Kejriwal's arrest. “If irrelevant facts are considered, that itself is a reason for cancellation of bail. There is evidence that Kejriwal demanded Rs 100 crore but it was not considered by trial court,” he argued.
The application for stay was vehemently opposed by senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhari, representing Kejriwal. They said Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution does not exist for the ED for which the liberty of a person figured low in priority. Singhvi said the ED argued for 3 hours and 45 minutes before the trial judge.
The trial court in its order also questioned the ED's silence on Kejriwal's assertion that he was arrested in the money laundering case related to the alleged excise scam without having been named in the CBI FIR or the ECIR registered by the anti-money laundering agency. Enforcement Case Informaton Report (ECIR) is ED's version of an FIR.
