Achi news desk-
GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court has hinted at exploring the possibility of interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal given the ongoing Lok Sabha elections, if the case takes more time to resolve. The court heard Kejriwal’s plea on Friday, May 3 challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi liquor policy case.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Khanna and Dipankar Datta heard arguments from both sides for about two hours, with senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing Kejriwal and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appearing for the Ministry of Justice. Due to the extensive submissions, the hearing was adjourned until next Tuesday, May 7.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
Hana noted that if the hearing continues to be prolonged, the court may consider the request for temporary bail in light of the election context. "So maybe we’ll consider the question of temporary bail because of the elections," Hana said. The judge emphasized that this is a notice to the court only, and not an indication of any final decision.
Raju pointed to statements made by AAP MP Sanjay Singh after he was granted bail by the Supreme Court, suggesting that they might influence the court’s consideration of Kejriwal’s plea. The committee reiterated that it only informs the parties of its intention to consider temporary bail, and does not make any judgment.
During the discussion, Khanna asked about the dates for the Delhi elections and informed them that they were scheduled for May 23. Singhvi claimed that Kejriwal’s arrest was unjustified and pointed out that the MDD has no new material to justify his arrest, referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Senthil Balaji case, which states that failure to comply with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) offending arrest.
The ED alleged that Kejriwal’s involvement in formulating Delhi’s liquor policy allowed liquor companies to recoup bribes as profits. In addition, the ED alleged that Kejriwal, as AAP chief, was vicariously liable as some of the proceeds of the crime were allegedly diverted to a party. However, Singhvi argued that a political party does not fall under Section 70 of the PMLA, as it refers to "Company" and not an association of individuals.
Also Read: Traffic Restrictions Issued on Jatinga-Harangajao Stretch of NH 27 in Dima Hasao
The bench expressed some difficulty in accepting this argument, noting that companies can also be considered associations of individuals. Khanna further commented that Kejriwal is yet to be charged with the underlying offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The committee asked whether it would be possible to proceed against Kejriwal in the absence of judicial proceedings against the AAP under Section 8 of the PMLA.
Raju argued that no ruling is required for confiscation proceedings, and such action can be based on a conviction alone. The hearing also covered several other issues, with Singhvi claiming that the ED withheld material that could have benefited Kejriwal. The Supreme Court directed the ASG to respond to a series of questions in the next hearing, scheduled for May 7.
