New Delhi 10 :- Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal opposed the Enforcement Directorate plea challenging the trial court order granting him bail in the Excise Policy money laundering case and said the discretionary orders of bail cannot be set aside merely on perceptions and fanciful imagination of the prosecution.
Kejriwal stated that the argument raised by the ED that ‘irrelevant materials have been considered’ will not only be tantamount to dictating to the Court as to the course to be adopted but also demonstrate an element of arrogance that has crept into the mind of this particular investigating agency.
The reply copy stated that during the hearing on the stay application, ED chose to
produce media reporting before this Court regarding the proceedings which had occurred before the Special Court during the hearing of the bail application. Significantly, the ED adopts varying and contradictory standards as per its convenience. In other cases where such proceedings reported in media were brought before the Court, it has been a vehement objection of the ED that the same cannot be relied upon.
Reply copy further stated that liberty is a sacrosanct constitutional value and the Courts of this country are duty bound to act as sentinel to protect Citizens’ Liberty against the wrath of State sceptre. The incarceration of the respondent/Arvind Kejriwal in the present matter is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. Enforcement Directorate has implicated the respondent in a false and concocted story, no case is made out against the Respondent and the arrest in the instant matter is absolutely illegal.
There is no material to show the involvement in the process or activity related to POC — be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so, stated Kejriwal to Delhi High Court.
the Respondent is a victim of a witch-hunt and Standard Modus Operandi adopted by the Enforcement Directorate to implicate its given targets wherein the Enforcement Directorate uses illegal measures of pressurizing the other co-accused and inducing them to make an incriminating statement instead of “no-objection” by ED to the grant of bail of such co-accused, alleged Arvind Kejriwal.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing on ED’s plea challenging the order granting bail to Arvind Kejriwal to July 15.
Recently the Delhi High Court upheld the Delhi Chief Minister bail order passed by the trial court and said, the trial court should have at least recorded its satisfaction about the fulfilment of twin conditions of section 45 of PMLA before passing the impugned order.
The bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain in the order stated that “the Court ought to maintain a delegate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and order granting bail much before commencement of trial. The Court is not supposed to weigh the evidence meticulously. However, the Vacation Judge in the impugned Order has not discussed the requirement of section 45 of PMLA while passing the Impugned Order. The trial court should have at least recorded its satisfaction about the fulfilment of twin conditions of section 45 of PMLA before passing the impugned order.
The perusal of the Impugned Order reflects that the Vacation Judge has passed the Impugned Order without going through and appreciating the entire material brought on record by the rival parties which reflects perversity in Impugned Order, observed Delhi HC while. dealing with the arguements made by ED counsel stating that the impugned Order passed by the trial Judge has observed that it is not possible to go through thousands of pages of documents
filed by the respective parties but the court must work on the matter whichever comes for consideration and pass the order by law.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday stayed the trial Court order granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal while allowing the Enforcement Directorate plea seeking a stay on the Trial Court order in the excise policy money laundering case.
While passing the order, the vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that documents and arguments were not appreciated properly by the trial court. This court believes that the trial court has not applied its mind and has not considered the material properly.
ED earlier submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court deserves to be stayed and set aside as a vacation judge has returned perverse findings in almost every paragraph of its order on both the facts and the law after admittedly not examining the material placed on record by the prosecution, ED told Delhi High Court.
On June 20, the trial judge granted bail to Kejriwal in the money laundering case. The next day, the ED moved an urgent petition before the High Court challenging the bail order. The High Court heard both sides extensively reserve orders on the ED’s application to stay the bail order and halted the release of Kejriwal until the pronouncement of its order.
