In a significant development for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who has been in judicial custody for 43 days in connection with a money laundering case linked to the excise policy, the Supreme Court has signaled its readiness to hear arguments on his interim bail plea. The court scheduled the hearing for May 7, citing the upcoming Lok Sabha polls in Delhi.
A bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta instructed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to prepare its case for the hearing, news agency PTI reported. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, was informed by the bench that due to the complexity of the case, the hearing on Kejriwal's plea against arrest might take considerable time. Therefore, the court was contemplating hearing the probe agency's stance on interim bail.
"It appears we can't complete today. We will post it on Tuesday morning itself. Mr Raju, one more thing. If it is going to take time and it does appear to us that it may take some time, we will then consider the question of interim bail because of the elections," the bench told Raju, as quoted by PTI.
"We are not commenting on it either way. We are just saying we will hear on interim bail and not saying we will grant interim bail. We may or may not grant interim bail," the bench clarified.
Raju, reiterating his opposition to Kejriwal's bail, referred to statements made by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh following his release on bail last month. The bench emphasised that it was notifying the agency about its intentions, ensuring no surprises during the May 7 hearing.
ALSO READ | Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Challenging CM Kejriwal's Arrest, Says Custody Is ‘In Pursuance To Judicial Orders’
No Direct Evidence Linked Kejriwal To Kickbacks: Abhishek Singhvi
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, was also advised by the bench to seek instructions regarding the Chief Minister's official duties while in custody.
Singhvi highlighted that Kejriwal's arrest came shortly after the announcement of Lok Sabha elections, suggesting a political motive. He argued against AAP's inclusion under Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), contending that political parties operate differently from companies.
The bench, however, expressed skepticism towards Singhvi's arguments, indicating that AAP could be prosecuted along with individuals in charge. Singhvi maintained that no direct evidence linked Kejriwal to kickbacks, suggesting that if any wrongdoing occurred, it would fall under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
During the proceedings, questions were raised regarding the omission of nine exculpatory statements from witnesses in Kejriwal's arrest grounds. Raju justified this by stating that only relevant materials were required for the arrest, avoiding excessive documentation, PTI reported.
The court disagreed, citing the precedence set by the 2022 verdict in Vijay Madanlal Choudhury case, which emphasised presenting the entire material before the court during arrest.
The Supreme Court had issued a notice to the ED on April 15, seeking its response to Kejriwal's plea. The Delhi High Court had previously upheld Kejriwal's arrest, asserting the legality of the ED's actions due to his non-compliance with summonses. The case revolves around alleged corruption and money laundering in Delhi government's excise policy for 2021-22, which has since been scrapped.