Interim Bail for Kejriwal: Possibility or Assumption?

MOHAN KHOUND

The Supreme Court hinted at the potential for an interim bail for Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi Chief Minister, on Friday due to the ongoing Lok Sabha election.

The court communicated this possibility to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), stating that it may consider the interim bail in light of the electoral context.

Interim Bail for Kejriwal: Possibility or Assumption?

Justice Sanjiv Khanna, leading a two-judge Bench alongside Justice Dipankar Datta, clarified this consideration to S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General representing the ED. The judges questioned the ED about the timing of the polling phase in Delhi, with senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, informing that the polling would take place in the sixth phase on May 25. Campaigning is expected to conclude on May 23.

Kejriwal was arrested on March 21, days after the announcement of the Model Code of Conduct for the general election on March 16. His arrest came shortly after the Delhi High Court denied him protection from arrest. This was his fifth remand, which is set to last until May 7.

The Supreme Court openly addressed the possibility of an interim bail during the hearing, signaling that nothing has been decided and that all parties should not make any assumptions regarding the decision. Justice Khanna stressed that the court did not want to surprise the ED at the next hearing scheduled for May 7.

Singhvi concluded his submissions stating, “we are at a time when liberty particularly matters, though it matters all the time”. This perspective underlines the significance of the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, almost two years after the FIR was registered in the case.

Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (Aam Aadmi Party), believes that his arrest is a strategic move executed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to disrupt his election campaign. He accuses the BJP of using the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a law enforcement agency and economic intelligence agency responsible for enforcing economic laws and fighting economic crime in India, as a tool to carry out this plan.

Kejriwal strongly argues that his arrest is not just an attempt to hinder his personal political journey, but it is also a broader strategy to suppress opposition to the BJP, which is currently the ruling party in India. He suggests that these actions taken against him are a direct assault on the democratic principles that uphold the rights to free and fair elections.

He believes that by arresting him, the BJP is attempting to limit the influence and reach of the Aam Aadmi Party, reducing its chances of success in the upcoming election. This, he notes, is an attempt to monopolize power and control over the political landscape, which goes against the democratic values of India.

Kejriwal also warns that this move by the BJP may set a dangerous precedent where the ruling party can misuse power to suppress dissent and opposition, thereby undermining the democratic process. He urges that the principles of free and fair elections should be respected, and that all political parties should be allowed to campaign and contest without fear or favor.

In conclusion, Kejriwal believes that his arrest is a political move by the BJP, using the ED as a tool, to hinder his campaign and suppress opposition to the ruling party. This, he asserts, undermines the principles of free and fair elections.

The ED, on the other hand, counters that politicians involved in criminal activities do not have immunity from arrest. During the hearing, Justice Khanna noted that there is no CBI prosecution against Kejriwal yet, to which Raju responded that the investigation is still ongoing.

Kejriwal’s defense pointed out that his name is not mentioned in the First Information Report, the Enforcement Case Information Report, the prosecution complaints, the statements of the witnesses, or in the CBI charge sheets related to the case. No new evidence has been collected against him since the FIR was filed in August 2022.

The Supreme Court questioned the ED’s objective evaluation of the evidence, both against and in favor of Kejriwal, before deciding that there were justifiable reasons to believe him guilty under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court emphasized that an arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA requires significant proof of guilt.

The court raised concerns over whether the investigating officer only considered evidence against Kejriwal, and ignored any evidence supporting his non-involvement. Singhvi argued that several statements by co-accused-turned-star witnesses did not mention the Chief Minister. Raju asserted that the investigating officer can ignore “irrelevant” evidence and that it is the probe agency’s discretion to decide what constitutes material proof in a case.

03-05-2024

Images from different sources

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking. You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com (For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary)