Delhi High Court Stays Arvind Kejriwal's Bail, Says Trial Court Didn't Properly Appreciate ED Case & Materials

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday(June 25) stayed the trial court's order granting bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain allowed the application moved by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking stay of the trial court's order. 

The court said that the Vacation Judge passed the bail order without going through ED's entire material which reflects “perversity” in it.

“The Vacation Judge while passing the Impugned Order did not appropriately appreciate the material/documents submitted on record and pleas taken by ED and the averments/grounds as raised in the petition under section 439(2) of the Code require serious consideration while dealing with said petition. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the operation of the Impugned Order is stayed,” the court said.

The High Court took objection to the trial judge's observation that the entire voluminous record was not perused. Such an observation was "totally uwarranted" and showed that the trial court has not applied its mind to the material, the High Court stated. 

The High Court also accepted the ED's submission that proper opportunity was not granted to it by the trial judge to present the case.

“It is not understandable that on one hand, the Vacation Judge has expressed her inability to go through entire documents stated to have been running into thousands of pages at the time of passing the Impugned Order and on the other hand, how in para no. 36 the Vacation Judge has mentioned that relevant arguments and contentions raised on behalf of the parties are dealt with,” Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said.

The court found factual force in the arguments advanced by ED that the Vacation Judge did not pass the bail order after due consideration of entire material on record. 

“The observation made by the Vacation Judge in Impugned Order is uncalled for, unwarranted and out of context. The Vacation Judge should refrain from making such observations in the Impugned Order. The Vacation Judge was required to consider every important and relevant document at time of passing of Impugned Order,” the court said.

The court further observed that the Vacation Judge did not consider the issues mentioned by ED in its written note which was submitted before the trial court.

It said that every court is under an obligation to give sufficient and appropriate opportunity to represent their respective case before the court and that ED ought to have given adequate opportunity to advance arguments on bail application by the Vacation Judge.

Furthermore, the Court added that the Vacation Judge failed to discuss the requirement of section 45 of PMLA while passing the bail order.

“The trial court should have at least recorded its satisfaction about fulfillment of twin conditions of section 45 of PMLA before passing the impugned order,” the court said.

It added that the issue regarding Kejriwal's role for vicarious liability was taken by ED by mentioning that the same was specifically examined and established but said issue did not find any place in the Impugned Order.