The Delhi High Court will on Tuesday pronounce its verdict on a plea by the Enforcement Directorate seeking a stay on the trial court order granting bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case stemming from the alleged excise scam.

The order is scheduled to be pronounced at 2:30 pm. While Kejriwal did not get any relief from the money laundering case linked to liquor policy scam as the Supreme Court on Monday refused to pass an order on his plea challenging the Delhi High Court order which stayed the bail granted to him by lower court and also observed that stay orders are normally not reserved and pronounced the same day.

A vacation Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti decided to await the pronouncement of the Delhi High Court’s stay order in the meantime and fixed June 26, the next date of hearing.

“Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that parties were given opportunities to file short submissions by June 24, 2024. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju who appears for the Enforcement Directorate submits that the order on the stay application would be passed shortly and therefore it would be appropriate that this court adjourns the proceedings to a date so that it may have opportunity of going through the order. In the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct that this matter, be put up day after tomorrow… in the meantime, if an order is passed by the High Court, copy of the same shall be brought on record,” the bench ordered.

However, the judge pointed out that it was “unusual” for orders to be reserved in stay applications as conventionally they are pronounced soon after the Court concludes hearing arguments. "Normally, in stay applications, orders are not reserved. They are passed on the spot. It is a bit unusual. Anyway, we will have it the day after tomorrow”, Justice Misra observed

During the brief hearing, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, sought vacation of the interim stay on the bail order, contending it was contrary to the well-established norm that a bail granted is very different from a bail reversed or cancelled.  Giving the sequence of events that unfolded in the high court on June 21, Singhvi said, after the bail was granted on June 20, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, made a mention before a vacation bench. "This is important. On June 21, at the mentioning stage itself, in my presence, the judge stays the order and then the judge proceeds to hear us for some time on that day at length. Then reserves order," he said.

Contending that there are two or three legal points involved, Singhvi said, first, the procedure of staying a bail on the first attempt, on the first day and first challenge is "unprecedented" and, secondly, the balance of convenience is totally in Kejriwal's favour.

"If the judgement is reversed, the man will go back to jail as he did when he was out for three weeks under the Supreme Court's direction. The Supreme Court had directed him to be out for three weeks and he went back immediately. Secondly, he is not a flight risk," Singhvi said. The bench told Singhvi that pronouncing any order at this stage would be prejudging the issue which is before the high court. "We will be pre-judging the issue, if we pass any order at this stage. It is not some other court but the high court," the bench told Singhvi.

Singhvi said the order was reserved on the interim relief sought by the ED, while the main matter is still pending, and if the bail order is reversed, Kejriwal will go back to jail like he did on June 2. "Why can't I be free? I am not a flight risk. I will go back to jail the moment the order is reversed. I have a judgement in my favour," he submitted.

ASG SV Raju, appearing for the ED, opposed the plea of Kejriwal, and said the high court is about to pronounce the verdict on its stay application.  The bench noted that the high court had on June 21 asked the parties to file written submissions till June 24 and observed that the order is likely to be pronounced in a day or two.

The bench asked ASG SV Raju about the twin conditions under section 45 of the PMLA and whether they were satisfied. The ASG said he was not given an opportunity to argue in detail and file the reply. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also appearing for the ED, said the twin conditions were not met as the trial court itself said it has not gone through the records and Raju was not given optimum time to argue his case.

Singhvi urged the bench to stay the high court order before it is pronounced."I know what I am asking. This court must stay the high court judgement before it is pronounced just like the high court had stayed the bail order on mere mentioning by the ED," he submitted. Justice Misra said if the high court made a mistake, why should this court repeat it. Singhvi urged the matter to be listed later this week, contending it related to personal liberty.The bench then posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday.