[Liquor Policy Case] Delhi High Court Grants Interim Stay On Kejriwal’s Bail

Read Time: 04 minutes


Kejriwal was arrested on the evening of March 21st after the high court refused to shield him from coercive actions. Subsequently, he obtained bail from the Supreme Court to continue his election campaign. He sought an extension of this relief, but both the High Court and the Supreme Court rejected his request. He then approached the trial court to seek regular bail, which was granted

The Delhi High Court, on Friday, granted an interim stay on the bail granted to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, by the Rouse Avenue Court, while also reserving the final order. Senior Advocate Chaudhuri criticized this decision, arguing that the original order was well-founded and should not have been stayed.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain stated his intention to thoroughly review arguments from both the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Kejriwal before issuing a final decision, reserving judgment until the following week.

The ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, asserted that the vacation bench had considered irrelevant information when evaluating the bail application. ASG Raju contended “If you consider irrelevant material, the order of bail becomes vulnerable”.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocates Singhvi and Chaudhuri, representing Kejriwal, remarked “The trial court's order is a view which is not palatable to the ED. Their view is my way or the highway. If the judge had written a treatise dealing with every argument, they will say it is a mini trial”. 


The Rouse Avenue Court had granted bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, criticizing the ED for bias and failure to directly link him to proceeds of crime in the excise policy case. The court specifically admonished the ED for not clarifying the time required to trace the complete money trail and emphasized that without solid evidence, the accused should not be detained.

Furthermore, the court highlighted the importance of upholding the constitutional rights of under-trials, citing precedents from higher courts. It clarified that while it wasn't assessing the severity of the alleged offense, it was bound to follow established principles.

Additionally, the court noted the ED's failure to explain how alleged proceeds of crime were used in the Goa Assembly elections by AAP, despite a significant portion of the funds remaining unaccounted for after two years.

Case Title: ED v Arvind Kejriwal