Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Directorate of Enforcement – Petitioner
versus
Arvind Kejriwal – Respondent
Crl.M.C 4858 of 2024
Decided on 25.6.2024
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120 B read with Section 477A and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Delhi Liquor scam – ED seeking stay on bail granted to sitting Chief Minister of Delhi – Personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution cannot be deprived to a citizen except with procedure established by law – However, at this stage it cannot be said that arrest and remand of respondent was not in accordance with law and personal liberty of respondent was curtailed without following procedure established by law – Although, there is no allegation of misuse of interim bail by respondent but respondent was not granted interim bail on merit but in background of Lok Sabha General Elections – Vacation Judge while passing impugned Order did not appropriately appreciate material/documents submitted on record and pleas taken by ED and averments/grounds as raised in petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. require serious consideration while dealing with said petition – Operation of impugned Order stayed.(Paras 17.1, 17.2 and 22)
Result: Application allowed.
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.
1.1 ED issued 9 summon to the respondent which were stated to be replied by the respondent but the respondent did not appear before ED in response to the summons. ED filed complaints under section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) bearing no. CT 02/2024 dated 02.02.2024 and CT 04/2024 against the respondent on which the cognizance was taken vide order dated 07.02.2024 and 07.03.2024 respectively passed by the Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi. The respondent challenged the cognizance orders dated 07.02.2024 and 07.03.2024 but the concerned Special Court vide order dated 15.03.2024 declined to grant any interim relief to the respondent. The respondent on 19.03.2024 also filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (Crl) 937/2024 seeking quashing of summons under section 50 PMLA dated 26.02.2024 and 16.03.2024 and notice was issued by this Court for 22.04.2024. The respondent also filed an application bearing Crl. M. A. no 9106/2024 in W.P. (Crl) 937/2024 and the Division Bench of this Court did not grant any interim relief to the respondent on the said application vide order dated 21.03.2024.
1.2 ED arrested the respondent on 21.03.2024 at 9:05 PM under section 19 the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”) for the purpose of further investigation. The respondent being aggrieved by the arrest filed the writ petition bearing Diary No. 13598/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was listed on 22.03.2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn after giving liberty to the respondent to raise all pleas and contentions before the trial court during the remand proceedings. The Special Judge vide order dated 22.03.2024 granted the custody of the respondent to ED for investigation till 28.03.2024 which was extended till 01.04.2024. The respondent was remanded to judicial custody on 01.04.2024 which is continuing up till date.
1.3 The respondent on 26.03.2024 preferred a writ petition bearing no. W.P. (Crl) 985/2024 to challenge his arrest on the ground of illegality and the remand order dated 22.03.2024 which was replied by ED. The writ petition bearing W.P. (Crl) 985/2024 was dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 09.04.2024. The respondent being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.04.2024 filed SLP (Crl) bearing no 5154/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondent was granted interim bail in SLP (Crl) 5154/2024 vide order dated 10.05.2024 till 01.06.2024 on the account of campaigning in the upcoming Lok Sabha general elections. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already reserved judgment after conclusion of arguments in SLP (Crl) 5154/2024 vide order dated 17.05.2024.
1.4 The respondent on 30.05.2024 filed interim bail application vide IA no. 91/2024 and regular bail ap
(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 circu....
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....
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.
Bail under PMLA not cancellable without supervening circumstances like liberty misuse, bail condition violation, or evidence tampering; special court validly applied Section 45 twin conditions absent....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails, allowing bail under Section 436A of the CrPC despite statutory restrictions in the PMLA.
The legal principle established is that the grant of bail must be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by the Court, balancing numerous factors that gu....
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.
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
