Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Rouse Avenue Court, on Wednesday, clarified that it would not reserve its order after the conclusion of the arguments in Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail application in the liquor excise policy case. 

Vacation Judge Niyay Bindu emphasized that she would not postpone her decision, stating, “I will not reserve order. Everyone knows it is a high-profile matter. I will pass the order after hearing it”.

Additionally, Kejriwal had requested the presence of his wife, Sunita Kejriwal, during his examination by a medical board. The court previously sought a report from Tihar Jail concerning this matter, clarifying that Kejriwal, being in judicial custody, required Tihar Jail's response, not the ED’s.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, representing Kejriwal, contended that the case against his client relied heavily on the testimony of individuals who were themselves implicated and had been offered bail in exchange for their cooperation with the ED. Chaudhary questioned the credibility of these witnesses, describing them as "tainted" and motivated by promises of pardon.

Senior Advocate Chaudhary further argued that these statements, made under duress after the witnesses' arrests and failed bail attempts, lacked substantial corroboration. He specifically mentioned the statement of Lok Sabha member Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, whose son, Raghava Magunta Reddy, became an approver in the case. Senior Advocate Chaudhary highlighted the political affiliations of MP Reddy, who is aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party-led alliance.

Senior Advocate Chaudhary also scrutinized the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, noting it occurred just before the Lok Sabha elections, despite the ED possessing most of the statements well before then. He pointed out that until August 2023, Kejriwal was not considered an accused and was summoned in a personal capacity, yet his arrest was justified by his roles as Chief Minister and AAP convenor.

Senior Advocate Chaudhary criticized the ED's approach, suggesting it was overstepping by treating Kejriwal’s conduct as a prosecutorial matter typically handled by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), not under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He asserted that no concrete evidence, such as a money trail, supported the charges against Kejriwal, relying instead on dubious statements.

In contrast, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, stated that Kejriwal, initially not summoned as an accused, now faced a prosecution complaint with recognized money laundering charges. Raju cited a Supreme Court judgment indicating that cognizance of an offense implies a prima facie case.

The court requested the exact language of the order summoning Kejriwal to understand the specific charges, which Raju noted was reserved. The judge inquired about Kejriwal's lack of inclusion in the CBI's main case and the reliance on approver statements in the ED case.

ASG Raju countered Senior Advocate Chaudhary’s arguments, stating that the credibility of statements would be evaluated during the trial, not at the bail stage. He emphasized that approver testimony, incentivized by inducements, was legally acceptable, pointing out that such inducements are part of the prosecutorial strategy when direct evidence is scarce.

Addressing Kejriwal’s role, ASG Raju argued that Kejriwal was implicated both personally and vicariously as the leader of AAP. He mentioned a demand for a bribe of ₹100 crore, suggesting Kejriwal's prima facie guilt in the matter.

Background: 

Previously, the Delhi court had denied his interim plea, noting that his active participation in extensive election campaigning suggested he did not suffer from any severe or life-threatening medical condition.

Kejriwal's arrest occurred on the evening of March 21st subsequent to the high court's denial of protection against coercive measures in a case related to money laundering associated with an excise policy, prompting searches by the ED at the Chief Minister's residence in Delhi.

During a hearing on Kejriwal's plea against the ED's arrest, it was disclosed that personal communications between Kejriwal and Hawala operators had been uncovered. The ED alleged that Kejriwal had demanded Rs 100 crores during the Goa elections, which was subsequently routed through hawala transactions.

Earlier, on May 10th, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Kejriwal, permitting him to campaign for the Aam Aadmi Party in the 2024 General Elections. Following this, the ED informed the court that Kejriwal had made derogatory public statements post his release on interim bail. The terms of interim bail stipulated that Kejriwal should refrain from contacting witnesses or accessing official documents related to the case.