Delhi HC to pronounce verdict on Arvind Kejriwal's bail today
The Delhi High Court will likely deliver its verdict on Tuesday on the Enforcement Directorate's petition—seeking to halt the trial court's decision granting regular bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case. On Thursday, Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court approved bail for Kejriwal. The following day, the ED appealed to the Delhi High Court, requesting a stay on the trial court's order. The HC later imposed an interim stay on Kejriwal's release till it decides on the plea.
Why does this story matter?
The ED arrested Kejriwal on March 21 over corruption allegations linked to excise policy. The probe agency alleges that Kejriwal played a significant role in drafting the policy and soliciting bribes for liquor licenses. It claimed that his party, the Aam Aadmi Party, received kickbacks amounting to ₹100 crore which were used to fund its Goa and Punjab election campaigns. Both Kejriwal and the AAP have denied these charges, labeling them as "political vendetta."
'Let Delhi HC pass order...': SC on Kejriwal's bail plea
After Delhi HC's interim stay, Kejriwal moved the Supreme Court. On Monday, the apex court deferred the hearing of Kejriwal's bail plea until the Delhi HC passes its order. The SC has scheduled a hearing for CM's plea on Wednesday—noting the unusual nature of the high court's interim stay. The trial court—in its bail order—had said that Kejriwal's guilt was yet to be established and the ED failed to provide direct evidence linking him to the proceeds of crime.
ED expresses dissatisfaction with Rouse Avenue court's decision
Challenging the trail court's bail order, the ED had expressed dissatisfaction with the Delhi Rouse Avenue court's decision to grant bail to Kejriwal. SV Raju, the additional solicitor general (ASG) representing the ED, argued that the agency was not given a full opportunity to oppose Kejriwal's bail. He labeled the court's decision as "perverse," alleging that it was made without considering documents presented by the ED or hearing their arguments.
'Trial court faile to consider relevant facts'
Raju further pointed out inconsistencies in dates noted by the trial court regarding when material was available to ED and when Kejriwal was summoned. Raju argued that the trial court considered irrelevant facts while granting bail and failed to consider relevant ones. He said, "Bribe givers have said that he (Kejriwal) demanded ₹100 crore but it was not considered." Separately, Vikram Chaudhary, representing Kejriwal, had objected to the ED's request, calling it "astonishing and highly inappropriate."
