On Friday, the Delhi High Court issued an interim stay on the trial court's order granting bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the liquor policy case. This stay will remain in effect until the High Court pronounces its verdict on the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) petition. Consequently, the Delhi Chief Minister will continue to be held in Tihar Jail for the time being.
The High Court's decision is expected to be announced on June 25. "I am reserving the order for two to three days. Till pronouncement of the order, the operation of the trial court order is stayed," stated the court.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain issued this order after the ED challenged the trial court's decision from the previous day. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, argued in the High Court that he was not given a "full opportunity" to present his case. He criticized the trial court's handling, claiming it was a "perverse order" as the decision was made without thoroughly reviewing documents submitted by both sides or giving sufficient time for arguments.
ASG Raju contended that the trial court judge was in a hurry, not allowing enough time for arguments or written submissions, and referred to the documents as "bulky," which the judge admitted not reading fully. "A judge who admits that [they] haven't read the papers and grants bail, there cannot be greater perversity than this. This order has to go on this finding alone," Raju argued.
Citing Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Raju urged the High Court to stay the bail order, expressing strong objections to how the trial court handled the case, particularly its dismissal of key evidence presented by the ED.
ASG Raju highlighted the significant findings against Kejriwal, including his alleged role in a demand for Rs 100 crore, which the trial court overlooked. He criticized the rationale for granting bail based on Kejriwal's constitutional position, arguing it set a dangerous precedent where ministers might automatically be granted bail.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, condemned the ED's approach, describing it as deplorable and comparing it to a fantastical scenario like "Alice in Wonderland." Singhvi emphasized that the High Court and Supreme Court were dealing with the legality of the arrest, not the bail itself. He also stressed that "not one paisa" was traced to Kejriwal and accused the ED of disregarding Article 21, which pertains to personal liberty.
Singhvi also pointed out that Sarath Reddy, the director of Aurobindo Pharma, was granted bail due to back pain, highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the ED's approach. Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, supporting Singhvi's arguments, countered ASG Raju by stating that the ED had already argued extensively, implying that their claims of insufficient time were unfounded.
Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21 amid dramatic scenes just before the Lok Sabha polls. In May, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail due to the general elections, but he surrendered again on June 2.
