New Delhi, Jul 12 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Liquor Policy scam.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta held “Given right to life is concerned and since the matter is referred to a larger bench, WE DIRECT ARVIND KEJRIWAL TO BE RELEASED ON INTERIM BAIL.”
The Bench while granting the interim bail referred Kejriwal’s petition to a larger bench to examine Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. To examine whether there is a need or necessity of arrest must be read as a condition into Section 19 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act.
The Bench said Arvind Kejriwal has suffered incarceration for more than 90 days. He is an elected leader and it is up to him whether he wants to continue in the role or not.
“Courts can’t direct Kejriwal to step down because of his arrest, it’s for him to take a call, ” the bench added.
Justice Khanna held that the arrest meets the parameters of “reasons to believe” under S.19 of the PMLA. However, the bench chose to grant him interim bail considering his incarceration so far.
The bench clarified that the question of interim bail can be modified by the larger bench.
Kejriwal will, however, remain in custody since he was arrested by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the same liquor policy case on June 25.
The Supreme Court was hearing the plea of Delhi CM challenging the arrest by the ED in the liquor policy case.
The bench after hearing the arguments from both sides said, “ We have not examined the question of bail but we have examined parameters of section 19 PMLA. We have explained the difference between section 19 and section 45. section 19 is the subjective opinion of officers and is subject to judicial review section 45 is exercised by the court itself.”
The bench said, “We have held, as far as reasons to believe are concerned it meets with section 19 PMLA but we have gone into need and necessity of arrest.”
The bench said, “Whether need and necessity are about formal parameters of arrest, considers person, and can it be read into section 19 PMLA and then grounds which larger bench will look into.”
The bench held that MERE INTERROGATION DOES NOT ALLOW ARREST.
Advocate AM Singhvi appeared on behalf of Kejriwal and questioned the necessity and timing of the leader’s arrest.
Singhvi alleged that ED withheld material favoring him.
The Court asked Additional Solicitor General(ASG) SV Raju, appearing for ED, five questions which would be sought to be answered by him before the larger bench.
ED alleged that there was “direct” evidence to show that Kejriwal demanded Rs. 100 crores, which went to AAP for Goa election expenses.
The ED said the vicarious liability as the head of AAP, Kejriwal was also directly liable as the person who played a key role in formulating the excise policy.
Kejriwal was arrested by ED on March 21. Delhi High Court refused to grant him interim protection.
He remained in custody thereafter, until the Supreme Court granted him interim bail for the Lok Sabha elections on May 10. The same expired on June 2.
The Delhi CM had initially approached Delhi High Court challenging ED’s arrest. However, his plea was dismissed on April 9. He then approached the top Court, which issued notice on his plea on April 15.
Kejriwal will, however, remain incarcerated since he is presently in custody in the CBI case in the excise policy matter.
