The trial court in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case on the Delhi liquor policy granted bail to Arvind Kejriwal on 20th June. In the order, the judge said the ED was acting with bias and failed to give any direct evidence linking Mr. Kejriwal with the proceeds of the crime.
The bail order was, however, put on hold by the Delhi High Court a day later.
The trial judge, Nilay Bindu, came down heavily on the ED’s arguments that investigation was an art. “[…] because if it is so, then, any person can be implicated and kept behind bars by artistically procuring the material against him after artistically avoiding /withdrawing exculpatory material from the record. This very scenario constrains the court to draw an inference against the investigating agency that it is not acting without bias.”
The court was referring to the arguments made by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju on behalf of ED, where he had said that an approver cannot be discredited for the reason that he had been given an inducement in respect of bail or pardon.
The judge noted that the agency had remained silent on the fact that Mr. Kejriwal was not named by the Central Bureau of Investigation in its First Information Report or by the ED in its Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR). The allegations against Mr. Kejriwal surfaced only in the subsequent statements of certain co-accused. Mr. Kejriwal had not been summoned by the court to date but was lying in judicial custody on the insistence of the ED.
“ED has not shown anything on record that Vijay Nair was acting upon the directions of the applicant. It has also failed to establish that even if Vinod Chauhan has close relations with Charanpreet, how come the same going to help ED to establish the guilt of the applicant, even if, the applicant is having acquaintance with both of these co-accused,” the court noted.
“ED is also not clarifying as to how the alleged amount of ₹40 crore being traced out during the investigation is forming a part of the proceeds of the crime. It seems that ED also believes that the evidence on record is not sufficient to proceed against the applicant and it is taking time to procure the same in any manner whatsoever to convince the court with respect to the availability of the evidence against the applicant,” the court said.
It noted that the ED should be prompt and fair so that it can be perceived that the principles of natural justice were also being followed by the agency.
Commenting on the delayed bail in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the court noted that it became impossible for the accused to obtain bail in such cases as the investigating agency gave its own reasons, putting the accused on par with a convict without any hope of release.
“The situation becomes more grave if later on, the accused comes out to be innocent and the agony he has undergone remains unexplained,” the court had said while granting bail to Mr. Kejriwal.