The trial court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Against this, the Enforcement Directorate filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court. While the vacation session of the Delhi High Court heard this petition, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to Kejriwal while it has ordered to immediately stay Kejriwal’s release.
Aam Aadmi Party is ruling in Delhi. Arvind Kejriwal is the Chief Minister. The CBI and the Enforcement Directorate have started an investigation into the alleged malpractices in the liquor policy of the Delhi government. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21 in this case.
On May 10, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Kejriwal, who was in judicial custody in Tihar Jail on the occasion of the election. On expiry of this bail, Kejriwal was remanded in jail on June 2. At the same time, he had filed a bail petition in the Delhi Special Court.
During the hearing of Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea, the Enforcement Directorate strongly opposed the granting of bail to Kejriwal. The Enforcement Directorate argued that Kejriwal had links with the accused in the case. But Kejriwal’s lawyer argued that no evidence was filed by the enforcement department against him.
At the end of the trial, the court granted bail to Kejriwal. Following the court order, Kejriwal was expected to be released from jail. At the same time, the Enforcement Directorate filed an immediate appeal in the Delhi High Court against Kejriwal’s bail.
The Delhi High Court heard the petition and stayed the order on Kejriwal’s bail plea. Subsequently, Arvind Kejriwal also appealed to the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s suspension of bail. However, Kejriwal did not get relief from it.
In this situation, the Delhi High Court has said that in the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the decision of the special court granting bail to Kejriwal, the ban on granting bail to Kejriwal will continue.
Further, the Delhi High Court stated that the trial court did not give sufficient opportunity to the enforcement department to present its argument and also expressed a view that the trial court did not give a correct judgment. In other words, the trial court did not apply its mind.
