Delhi HC grants interim stay on Arvind Kejriwal’s bail order in Delhi Liquor Policy Case, says Vacation Judge did not appropriately appreciate pleas taken by ED
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain [25-06-2024]

Read Order: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. ARVIND KEJRIWAL[DEL HC- CRL.M.C 4858/2024]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, June 25, 2024: While observing that the Trial Court didn’t sufficiently and adequately deal with the pleas of the Enforcement Directorate in the alleged Delhi Liquor Policy scam case, the Delhi High Court has put an interim stay on the order granting bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

In this case, the CBI had registered an FIR against Manish Sisodia, Deputy Chief Minister, GNCTD and others under section 120 B read with section 477A of IPC, 1860 and section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations of irregularities in framing and implementation of Excise Policy of GNCTD for the year 2021-22. Thereafter, the petitioner/Directorate of Enforcement (ED) recorded ECIR and initiated investigation to trace out proceeds of the crime stated to have been generated due to alleged irregularities in formulation and implementation of Excise Policy 2021-22. The ED had issued 9 summons to the respondent which were stated to be replied by the respondent but the respondent did not appear before ED in response to the summons. ED filed complaints under section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thereafter the respondent challenged the cognizance orders but the concerned Special Court declined to grant any interim relief to the respondent.

The respondent also filed a writ petition seeking quashing of summons under section 50 PMLA. The ED arrested the respondent on 21.03.2024 under section 19 the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 for the purpose of further investigation. 

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition of the respondent as withdrawn after giving liberty to the respondent to raise all pleas and contentions before the trial court during the remand proceedings. The Special Judge granted the custody of the respondent to ED for investigation. The respondent was remanded to judicial custody which is continuing up till date.

The respondent preferred a writ petition to challenge his arrest but the same was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench. After filing of the SLP, Kejriwal was granted interim bail on the account of campaigning in the upcoming Lok Sabha general elections.The respondent had also applied for regular and interim bail l The Vacation Judge vide order dated 20.06.2024 (Impugned Order) also granted bail to the respondent.

ED approached the High Court challenging the Impugned Order with the prayer to grant ad interim ex-parte stay of the operation of Impugned Order.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain at the outset observed, “The personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be deprived to a citizen except with the procedure established by law.” It was opined by the High Court that at this stage it couldn’t be said that arrest and remand of the respondent was not in accordance with law and personal liberty of the respondent was curtailed without following procedure established by law.

The Bench didn’t find any force in argument advanced by respondent’s Counsel that if the present petition under section 439 (2) of the Code was dismissed then the respondent could be again remanded to judicial custody particularly in view of the fact that Impugned Order passed by the Vacation Judge was under serious challenge and grounds of challenge as raised by ED requires consideration of concerned court.

The respondent’s counsel had stated that no recovery of proceeds of crime was traced to the respondent. The Vacation Judge in para no. 24 of the Impugned Order observed that ED had failed to clarify how much time was required for tracing out the complete money trail particularly the remaining Rs.60 crores. It was further observed that unless and until the exercise of tracing out of the remaining amount was completed by ED, the respondent couldn’t be supposed to remain behind bars without proper evidence against him. The perusal of the note submitted by ED before the Special Judge/Vacation Judge reflected that the said plea was encountered by ED but not sufficiently and adequately dealt with by the Vacation Judge in the Impugned Order.Although, there was no allegation of misuse of interim bail by the respondent but the Bench didn’t lose sight of the fact that the respondent was not granted interim bail on merit but in background of 18th Lok Sabha General Elections. 

The High Court was of the view that the Vacation Judge while passing the Impugned Order did not appropriately appreciate the material/documents submitted on record and pleas taken by ED. As per the Court, the averments/grounds as raised in the petition under section 439(2) of the Code required serious consideration while dealing with said petition. 

Thus, allowing the present application, the Bench stayed the operation of the Impugned Order.