Staying the order granting bail to chief minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case linked to the alleged excise policy scam, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said the trial court’s order “reflects perversity” and held that the lower court did not “appropriately appreciate” the material placed before it by the Enforcement Directorate.
The court said the vacation (trial) judge, who passed the order, did so “without going through and appreciating the entire material brought on record by the rival parties”. “The perusal of the impugned order is reflecting that the vacation judge has passed the impugned order without going through and appreciating the entire material brought on record by the rival parties, which reflects perversity in impugned order,” it said.
A vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said the ED’s contentions assailing the bail order required serious consideration. “The Vacation (trial) Judge while passing the Impugned Order did not appropriately appreciate the material/documents submitted on record and pleas taken by ED and the averments/grounds as raised in the petition under section 439(2) of the Code require serious consideration,” it said, adding, “accordingly, the present application is allowed and the operation of the Impugned Order is stayed.”
The trial court, presided over by vacation judge Niyay Bindu, had granted bail to Kejriwal on June 20 and ordered his release on a personal bond of Rs 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 it was passed without granting it adequate opportunity to argue the case.
Justice Jain said every court is under an obligation to give sufficient opportunity to the parties to present their respective case and, in the instant case as well, ED ought to have been given adequate opportunity to advance arguments on AAP convener’s bail application.
“There is factual force in the arguments advanced by Sh. SV Raju that the Vacation Judge has not passed the Impugned Order after due consideration of entire material on record… The Vacation Judge in the Impugned Order has not discussed requirement of Section 45 of PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) while passing the Impugned Order. The trial court should have at least recorded its satisfaction about fulfilment of twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA before passing the impugned order,” the court said.
Under Section 45 of PMLA, an accused can be granted bail subject to the “twin conditions” that the court is prima facie satisfied that he is not guilty of such offence and the prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail.
The court said the observations made by the trial court in the bail order were “uncalled for, unwarranted and out of context” and it should have followed “judicial discipline” by refraining from attributing malafide on the part of the ED in view of an earlier HC order supporting absence of any such intent.
At this stage, the court stated, it cannot be said Kejriwal’s arrest and remand was not in accordance with law and that his personal liberty was curtailed without following the procedure established by law. It also said the interim bail granted to the chief minister by the Supreme Court was not on merit but in the background of the Lok Sabha general elections and, therefore, his argument that he did not misuse the same is not of much help.
“There is also no force in argument advanced by Dr Singhvi (CM’s lawyer) that… the respondent (Kejriwal) can be again remanded to judicial custody particularly in view of the fact that Impugned Order passed by the Vacation Judge is under serious challenge and grounds of challenge as raised by ED requires consideration of concerned court,” it said.
In the trial court order special judge Bindu said the ED failed to furnish direct evidence linking the AAP convener to the proceeds of crime in the money laundering case. On June 21, the HC put in abeyance the operation of the bail order till the pronouncement on the issue of stay. It also issued a notice to Kejriwal seeking his response to the ED’s plea challenging the trial court’s decision and listed it for hearing on July 10 before the roster bench.
Kejriwal approached the SC against the interim stay on his bail. On Monday (June 24), the top court fixed June 26 for hearing his plea against the stay, saying it would like to wait for the pronouncement of the HC order.
(With PTI inputs)
Comments
0 comment