Arvind Kejriwal's bail: In a major setback to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday, June 25, stayed the trial court’s June 20 order releasing the chief minister on bail in a money-laundering case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy. The Delhi High Court noted that the trial court had not ‘applied its mind’ when granting bail to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had challenged the trial court's bail order in the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi chief minister had moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's stay on his bail. The apex court had kept June 26 as the next hearing date.
The ED arrested Arvind Kejriwal in March on corruption allegations related to the Delhi liquor policy - accusations he denied as “politically motivated”.
The trial court granted Kejriwal bail and ordered his release on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh.
The ED moved the high court the next day and contended that the trial court's order was "perverse", "one-sided" and "wrong-sided" and that the findings were based on irrelevant facts.
The excise policy was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi lieutenant governor ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged irregularities and corruption involving its formulation and execution.
According to the CBI and the ED, irregularities were committed while modifying the excise policy and undue favours were extended to the licence holders.
-Delhi High Court said the trial court did not apply its mind while granting bail to Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case.
-The high court said that the trial judge ought to have given adequate opportunity to the ED while deciding the bail plea of Arvind Kejriwal.
-The Delhi High Court's vacation bench also noted that the trial court did not appreciate material placed before it by the ED against Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case.
-"Interim bail was granted for elections. Once the arrest and remand of Kejriwal was declared valid by coordinate bench, it can't be said that personal liberty of the applicant was curtailed in violation of law," Live Law quoted the Delhi High Court vacation bench as saying.
-The Delhi High Court also noted, “ASG SV Raju referred to the observation of the trial court that the vacation judge did not consider the record. Such observation was totally unjustified and reflected that the trial court had not applied its mind to the record.”
