'Victim Of ED's Witch Hunt, Mini Trial Not Required For Bail': Arvind Kejriwal Tells Delhi HC

Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in his reply to the ED's plea challenging the trial court order granting him bail in the Delhi Liquor Policy case has told the Delhi HC that he is a "victim of witch-hunt" by ED

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in his reply to the Enforcement Directorate's plea challenging the trial court order granting him bail in the Delhi Liquor Policy case has told the Delhi High Court that he is a "victim of witch-hunt" by ED.  He contends that ED's plea seeking cancellation of his bail is not maintainable and is contrary to the previous judgment passed by the Supreme Court. Using ED's own argument against it, Kejriwal has contended that the trial court Judge who granted bail to Kejriwal was not supposed to conduct a “mini trial.”

Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal tells Delhi High Court that he is a "victim of witch-hunt and Standard Modus Operandi adopted by Enforcement Directorate to implicate it’s given targets wherein the Enforcement Directorate uses illegal measures of pressurising the other co-accused and inducing them to make incriminating statement in lieu of 'no-objection' by ED to the grant of bail of such co-accused."

Kejriwal in a detailed reply to ED's plea has said that the Special Court that granted him bail had indeed gone through all the relevant material placed before. He tells court that the investigation qua large part of the alleged money trail is still pending and that the order granting bail was indeed based on broad probabilities as laid down by the Supreme Court in Catena of Judgments.

"The judgment of the Ld. Special Judge is not perverse or give rise to any cogent or overwhelming circumstances...The Ld. Special court has applied its mind to all the relevant material and documents as reflected in its observations at para 36. With this, most of the relevant arguments and contentions raised on behalf of both the parties are being dealt with.”

He further cites the Supreme Court verdict denying bail to Manish Sisodia.

"Referring to Section 45 of the PML Act, in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), the three Judges' Bench has opined that the provision does not require that to grant bail, the court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant has not committed an offence under the PML Act. Section 45 must be construed reasonably as the intent of the legislature cannot be read as requiring the court to examine the issue threadbare and in detail to pronounce whether an accused is guilty or is entitled to acquittal. Further, an order on an application for bail is passed much before the end of trial and sometimes even before commencement of trial. Lastly, it is trite, that for the purpose of considering an application for bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, and, therefore, the evidence need not be weighed meticulously, a tentative finding should be recorded on the basis of broad probabilities...," the reply quoted the top court.

Kejriwal further contends that the ED itself in their written submission dated 16.05.2024 before the Supreme Court while arguing for the legality of his arrest had submitted...There cannot be a “mini trial” at the stage of bail or even at the stage of examination of material behind the arrest of a person in any statute.

The Delhi CM has further argued that the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of High Court staying his bail completely misapplied the say settled position of law and infact equated the bail order with an order of guilt or acquittal which ought to have detailed findings which meticulous weighing of evidence. This approach to cancel bail by way of interim order is unheard in law and is also completely contrary to the principle of grant of bail.

He further says that the ED was indeed given sufficient opportunity of almost 4 hours in hearing stretched to two days.

"That the Ld. Special judge had given categorical findings qua the twin conditions as mandated under section 45 of the PMLA...The Ld. Special Judge had also given a finding qua non-utilization of funds in the Goa elections of AAP, hence giving a finding on Section 70 PMLA was not even required in law."

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday adjourned till July 15 the hearing in petition moved by Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the trial court order granting bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the alleged liquor policy scam.

After Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appearing for the Enforcement Directorate requested for more time for filing counter affidavit to Kejriwal's above response, the high court adjourned the matter till July 15.

A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna will be hearing the case.