Supreme Court Grants Bail To AAP MP Sanjay Singh In PMLA Case After ED's Concession

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 2) granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh in the money laundering case related to the Delhi liquor policy case after a concession was made by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

When the ED said it has no objection to grant of bail to Sanjay Singh in peculiar facts of the case, the Court ordered his release, clarifying that nothing was being expressed on merits. 

The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and PB Varale passed the order, while orally commenting that Singh would be entitled to indulge in political activities during the period of bail.

Singh's lawyer agreed to not make any public statement regarding the case.

Granting bail, the Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order which refused him bail. The Court also dismissed as infructuous the second petition filed by Singh challenging his arrest and remand.

Proceedings - Forenoon session

The forenoon session today began with Sr Adv Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (on behalf of Singh) emphasizing that the entire ED case against Singh was based on the statement of approver-turned Dinesh Arora, who in fact made 9 exculpatory statements before finally naming Singh. It was highlighted that Arora was granted bail on ED's "no-objection", while the concerned court remarked that ED was "playing smart".

Singhvi alleged that this no-objection was leveraged for obtaining the Section 50 statement later given by Arora, naming Singh. He also claimed that the ED launched a vendetta after Singh held a press conference, saying, the agency officers came to his house right after that.

The Senior Counsel questioned the necessity of Singh's arrest and ED's conduct of putting exculpatory statements made by Arora in "unrelied documents", which Singh cannot see or get. He beseeched the Court to stop this practice, calling it a "travesty of justice".

"Dinesh Arora was sent to judicial custody, after which he made allegation for the first time. Apart from this, there are unrelied documents, another travesty of justice...Is it fair for prosecution to put this statement in unrelied? I can't see or get it. Dinesh Arora is their star witness, they give him pardon etc. This practice of relying on X but not Y must be stopped by the Court", Singhvi said, alleging further that ED was trying to get Dinesh Arora bail without making it look that way.

Justice Khanna could be heard asking the Senior lawyer as to whether the alleged amount of Rs. 2 crores is part of predicate offense. Pointing that it was a very important question, Singhvi replied in the negative.

Another interesting aspect of the session was a hypothetical scenario suggested by the Bench to ask if PMLA, which is for a standalone offense, would be attracted. "If you treat PMLA as separate offense...suppose someone takes bribe, can we in terms of PMLA Act, require that that bribe amount should have been also made subject matter of attachment before invoking criminal proceedings?" Justice Khanna asked.

Underlining that PMLA is meant for forfeiture of money laundered, the bench asked the counsels to examine (although the question is not arising in the present case) whether PMLA would be attracted if a person is caught red-handed accepting bribe.

Even still, Singhvi replied briefly, "PMLA offense has to act on predicate offense. If you accept you are unable to attach, you accept you are unable to find. Therefore, there is no proceeds of crime". While he pressed that "proceeds of crime" is the anchor of the offense, Raju underlined that even concealment is covered by PMLA.

After hearing Singhvi and observing that there were 9 exculpatory statements by approver-Dinesh Arora, while no money had been recovered from Singh, the Bench asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju to obtain instructions on whether further custody of Singh was required. If there are no instructions, the ASG can argue on merits so the matter is decided, the bench had said.

The ASG was further asked to consider the implications of an order being passed in favor of Singh on merits, which would attract findings from the Court insofar as Section 45 PMLA is concerned.

To quote Justice Khanna, "You have kept him in custody for 6 months. Dinesh Arora has not initially implicated him. Later on, in a statement, he does. No money has been recovered, the trace of money is not there because it was long back. Fact of the matter is money has not been recovered. Please keep in mind that if we are [...] with him, we are required to record in terms of section 45 that he has prima facie not committed an offense. That could have its own ramifications in trial."

Proceedings - Afternoon session

When the bench reassembled at 2 PM, Raju placed before it ED's concession, albeit adding that the agency had an "arguable case": "Without going into merits, I will make a concession in the bail matter in the peculiar facts".

Taking into account ED's concession, the order was passed and dictated thus: "Leave granted. Mr SV Raju, ASG in the morning session was asked to obtain instructions. He states that respondent-ED has no objection in case appellant-Sanjay Singh is released on bail during pendency of the proceedings...in respect of offense under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA, 2002. In view of the statement made, we allow the present appeal and direct that the appellant-Sanjay Singh will be released on bail during pendency of the aforesaid on terms and conditions to be fixed by the Trial Court."

On Raju's request, the Bench clarified that, "the concession given would not be treated as a precedent" and that "the concession on behalf of ED has been made before commencement of arguments".

Background

Sanjay Singh, currently in judicial custody, was arrested by the ED on October 4, 2023, following searches at his residence in Delhi. The central agency alleges that an employee of businessman Dinesh Arora delivered Rs. 2 crores to Singh's house on two occasions.

Singh's arrest followed accusations made by Arora, who later turned approver in both the ED and CBI cases. ED claimed that it had digital evidence to confront Singh with.

The Delhi High Court rejected Singh's bail plea in February this year. This was preceded by rejection in October last year of Singh's petition challenging arrest and remand in connection with the money laundering case.

As such, the Supreme Court was hearing two special leave petitions filed by the arrested MP. The first plea was a challenge against his arrest and remand in the money laundering case, while the second was an application for bail. 

Case Details

1. Sanjay Singh v. Union of India & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14510 of 2023

2. Sanjay Singh v. Directorate Of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2558 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order