Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
Directorate of Enforcement – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Kejriwal – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
Crl. M.A. 18446/2024 (stay)
The factual background of the case as appearing from the record is that CBI registered an FIR bearing no. RC-0032022A0053 dated 17.08.2022 against Sh. Manish Sisodia, Deputy Chief Minister, GNCTD and others under section 120 B read with section 477A of IPC, 1860 and section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations of irregularities in framing and implementation of Excise Policy of GNCTD for the year 2021-22. Thereafter, the petitioner/Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as “ED”) recorded ECIR bearing no. ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022 on 22.08.2022 and initiated investigation to trace out proceeds of the crime stated to have been generated due to alleged irregularities in formulation and implementation of Excise Policy 2021-22. CBI filed the charge-sheet in predicate offence on 25.11.2022. ED filed the Prosecution Complaint on 26.11.2022 and the Special Court has taken the cognizance vide order dated 20.12.2022. ED subsequently also filed 06 supplementary charge-sheets and cognizance was taken by the Special Court on these supplementary charge sheets accordingly
(1) Personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution cannot be deprived to a citizen except with procedure established by law.
(2) Bail – Operation of bail granted in some special c....
The court emphasized the importance of cooperation with the investigation, the gravity of the offense, and the need to balance the fundamental right of personal liberty with the reasonable restrictio....
The High Court ruled that bail cannot be granted without satisfying the stringent conditions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with statutory requirement....
Bail – Ordinarily, superior courts should not interfere in an order of bail, however, in the event of such an order prima facie emitting smell of arbitrariness or illegality, its validity can be test....
(1) Application for cancellation of bail – Once it is held that there is power vesting in High Court or Sessions Court to cancel bail by exercising power under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., power to sta....
The court ruled that a bail order confirmed by a higher court cannot be revoked by a co-ordinate bench without new evidence and proper procedures.
The court emphasized the limitations on the court's power to cancel bail and the need for strong and substantive reasons to arrest a person who is set at liberty by admitting him to bail.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 allows for bail under Section 436A of the CrPC if the accused has served more than half of the maximum sentence for the offence charged.
The court established that the right to a speedy trial can allow for bail even under stringent provisions of the PMLA when the accused has been in custody for a substantial period.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article