The Supreme Court said that because of the polls, it might grant Arvind Kejriwal temporary bail

The Supreme Court stated during today’s session that it has not yet decided whether to grant Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal temporary release. It further stated that the matter will be reheard on May 7.

Arvind Kejriwal temporary bail.

 

In summary, the Supreme Court has stated that it must be transparent in order to ensure that no party is caught off guard when it decides Arvind Kejriwal’s temporary release on May 7.
Due to a liquor policy issue, Arvind Kejriwal has been detained at Delhi’s Tihar Jail since April 1.

Even though it made it clear that it hasn’t made a decision yet, the Supreme Court on Friday hinted that it might choose to give Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is now detained, temporary bail.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) was asked by the court to obtain guidance regarding the imposition of conditions and the possibility of granting interim bail.

Arvind Kejriwal

 

At the close of the hearing on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the ED, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta made oral observations.

This case could take some time. However, because of the elections, we might take the issue of interim bail into consideration if the case takes a while,” the bench stated.

“We will be ready to hear your concerns on temporary bail for him due to the upcoming elections on Tuesday of next week, May 7.

Obtain the proper guidance on this matter and the requirements that must be met. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who represented ED, was questioned by the bench. “We are asking you all of this just so you need not be taken by surprise,” he said.

Arvind Kejriwal temporary bail

 

The subject was subsequently scheduled for further hearing by the bench for May 7.

Raju was also asked by Justice Khanna to respond to the question, “Can Kejriwal still sign his official files”

The ASG responded by saying, “Your statement will be blown out of proportion.”

“That’s the problem with the open court,” Justice Khanna stated. He went on to clarify that the court has not indicated whether or not it will issue bail.

“We’re not making a statement. We have discussed it honestly. Justice Khanna cautioned all sides to avoid making assumptions.

On March 21, Kejriwal was taken into custody in relation to the Delhi excise policy issue.

The bench questioned the ED at the hearing and stated, “You have applied section 70.” You therefore claim that AAP is the main accused. Two prime suspects cannot be found guilty of the same offense. The CBI does not prosecute him. Although the probe was ongoing, Kejriwal is not chargesheeted

Justice Khanna

“There need not be adjudication,” Raju said.

“If AAP is a main accused and the adjudication proceeding has not been initiated against AAP to date, can you arrest Kejriwal?” Justice Khanna inquired once more at this point.

ASG Raju replied, “There can be confiscations without adjudication and that is the scheme of the act.”

Kejriwal’s senior attorney, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, stated during his appearance that none of the co-accused in his case had previously spoken. Then, out of nowhere, they spoke. A political party’s convenor, treasurer, etc., cannot be held responsible for anything the party does.”

“What is it that connects Kejriwal with what the ED is saying except that he is the convenor of AAP,” questioned the politician.

Assume a business belongs to a division. Is it possible to arrest its MD? Because of vicarious culpability, Kejriwal cannot be detained, Singhvi informed the bench.

“That is not how vicarious liability works; every person in charge and responsible is liable to be prosecuted,” the bench stated at this point. Is there evidence supporting the suspicion that Section 70 of the PMLA is the reason he is being detained?”

“Merely mentioning a company cannot lead to the arrest of its MD,” Singhvi retorted.

Justice Khanna continued, “Any person in overall in-charge of the company, you are vicariously liable with the company and then you have to show that it was done without your knowledge.”

In response, Singhvi stated, “You were thinking of corporate companies, not political parties. It’s a flavor for business. People’s associations will draw color from.”

After that, Justice Khanna declared, “A society will be covered by an association of people.”

Then, citing the ED’s response, Singhvi stated, “ED claims he is also involved in the demand for bribes. There’s no hard proof for this. Moreover, this is not money laundering—rather, it is an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act.”

The hearing will resume on May 7 in the event that it remains unresolved.

 

You may also like

Blog

chettah with men: A wildlife photographer awakens from a nap beneath a tree with chettah