On Thursday (June 20), a Delhi court granted bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case linked to a now-scrapped liquor policy.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) requested the court to allow the agency 48 hours to accept bail bonds so that the order could be challenged in a higher court. Special Judge Bindu, however, clarified that there was no stay on the bail order. Kejriwal’s counsel can apply for the bail bond before the concerned judge tomorrow.
Earlier in the day, the judge had reserved the order after hearing the matter for two days. Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 and was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in May, which lasted until June 1 due to the general elections. He surrendered on June 2.
As per a report by Live Law, ASG SV Raju, representing the ED, argued that co-accused Chanpreet Singh received significant cash amounts from entrepreneurs and paid for Kejriwal’s hotel stay. He asserted that the ED had substantial evidence and criticised Kejriwal for not providing his phone password, which he claimed was a ground for refusing bail under ordinary bail law, irrespective of section 45 of the PMLA.
Raju further accused Vijay Nair, who had no official role in the government, of acting as a middleman for Kejriwal, emphasising their close connection.
In response, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, representing Kejriwal, highlighted that the Supreme Court rejected Manish Sisodia’s bail due to his involvement in two cases, while Kejriwal was not accused in the CBI case and was only called as a witness. Chaudhari questioned the timing and motives behind Kejriwal’s arrest, suggesting political interference.
Chaudhari also dismissed allegations against co-accused Chanpreet Singh and questioned the evidence against Kejriwal, arguing that ED’s claims were based on presumptions rather than concrete evidence. He emphasised that mere proximity or communication with certain individuals did not imply wrongdoing.
Additionally, Chaudhari noted that Vijay Nair’s statement claimed he reported to other officials, not Kejriwal, and there was no proof of Kejriwal instructing Nair to receive bribes.
Previously, Chaudhari argued that Kejriwal had not been made an accused in the scheduled offense, and questioned the credibility of ED’s evidence, pointing out that witnesses had turned approvers. He also questioned the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest.
The ED contended that there was clear evidence of a money laundering offense, which had been recognised by the concerned court. The agency argued that Kejriwal needed to prove his innocence and his constitutional post was irrelevant in this regard. The ED also dismissed Kejriwal’s claims for bail on medical grounds, citing his active election campaigning as evidence of his health.
Recently, the ED filed a supplementary chargesheet naming Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi Party as accused in the money laundering case. The court is yet to decide on the cognisance of this chargesheet.
The Delhi High Court had earlier dismissed Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest, finding sufficient material and witness statements implicating him in the excise policy scam. The ED has labelled Kejriwal as the “kingpin” of the scam, alleging his involvement in a conspiracy to provide undue profit margins to certain private companies.
AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh are also accused in the case, with Sisodia remaining in jail while Singh has been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The ED claims that the excise policy was manipulated to benefit specific companies, with Kejriwal and his associates orchestrating the conspiracy.
Comments