Professional Update

(Criminal Case laws)

CRL. M.C. no.  4858/2024 (Delhi High Court)

Directorate of Enforcement.

vs

Arvind Kejriwal.  

Facts.

The ED (Appellant) is aggrieved by the order passed by the Trail Court (Rouse avenue court) against the IA.  92/2024 dated 05.06.2024. The respondent has applied for the bail application against the ECIR generate by the appellant and the respondent has been granted by the bail by the Trail Court.

Contention of the ED (Appellant) . (Sh. SV Raju, ASG).

1. The Trail court order has not considered the contentions and the material provided to the court leading to perversity in the order.
2. The Trail order has not recorded the satisfaction with regards to the twin condition laid down under the PMLA provision under section 45 of the Act.
3. The Trail court has recorded the findings that the voluminous recorded provided by the respondent running thousands of pages cannot be taken into consideration before passing the vacation bench order.
4. The Trail court has recorded the finding that the ED has maliciously attempted to incarcerate the respondent as the evidence was provided in August 2022 and the respondent has been arrest in March 2024 just before the Lok Sabha election.

Contention of the Respondent. (Sh. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Vikram Chaudary).

1. During the course of hearing of the Trail court bail application out of 5 hours, the counsel of the ED has taken 3:45 hours. The definition of perversity by the ED counsel is that each and every argument of the ED should be recorded in the Trail Court order.
2. The Trail Court has recorded the detailed order and material and argument of the ED is taken into consideration.
3. In the matter of Manish Sisodia, the Hon’ble Supreme court has not granted the bail since the CBI has also lodged the complaint and arrested the accused. In the present case, CBI has not initiated any inquiry from the applicant.
4. The Respondent (Arvind Kejriwal) is holding a constitutional post being the chief minister of delhi and have virtually no flight risk, if the bail is granted.
5. The respondent has been granted the interim bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the respondent has not violated any condition of the Hon’ble Court while on bail.

Held.

The Delhi high court is well aware that the present case pertains to the stay of the trail court order and not as an bail order on merit as per section 439(2) of the CrPC.

The Delhi High Court Held that the findings of the trail court in Para 16 that the material and documents supplied by the ED running thousands of pages cannot be taken into consideration while on the vacation bench is uncalled for and unwarranted.

The Trail court has erred in granting the bail without being satisfied about the twin condition granted u/s 45 of the PMLA that accused is not guilty of the offence.

The trail court order reflects non application of mind wherein the para 16 records that the material is not taken into consideration and in para 31, which reflects that the all the statements and material is taken into consideration.

The interim bail granted by the Hon’ble Supreme court is only for the purpose of 18^th Lok Sabha election. That interim bail cannot be taken into as a general rule.

Therefore, the operation of the impugned order is stayed.

(Disclaimer: The information provided by the author in the article is for general informational purposes only. All information provided is in the good faith, however we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability or completeness of any information in the article.)

CA Manoj Garg

9811275735