NEW DELHI:
Supreme Court
on Friday said it may consider if
interim bail
could be granted to
Delhi CM
Arvind Kejriwal or not in view of
polling
in the capital in three weeks, as deciding on the
AAP chief
’s plea challenging his arrest in the
excise policy case
may take time given that it involved larger issues related to action under
Prevention of Money Laundering Act
.
At the end of the day’s proceedings, which remained inconclusive, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta indicated that it may have to consider interim bail for Kejriwal but made it clear to both Enforcement Directorate and the CM that it was not expressing a view one way or another. “We are going to hear you both. We must be open to you, because neither side should be taken by surprise. Do not assume anything, do not read anything into it,” the bench said and asked both sides to come prepared on May 7.
It asked additional solicitor general S V Raju to seek instructions from ED regarding the conditions which should be imposed if interim bail is granted. “This case may take time… we may consider the question of interim bail, because of the elections,” the bench told the ASG. The court is left with only two weeks before going into summer recess. Opposing the proposition of interim bail, Raju told the bench that AAP MP Sanjay Singh, who was earlier granted bail in the excise case, was making all sorts of statements after coming out of jail.
The court said it would hear the ASG before grant of any relief and asked senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi whether Kejriwal would be signing any files as he’s Delhi CM.
Voting for the seven Lok Sabha seats in Delhi is scheduled for May 25, while polling in Punjab is in the last phase on June 1. Kejriwal, who was arrested on March 21, has questioned the timing of his arrest and accused the Centre and ED of trying to disturb AAP’s campaign. Kejriwal’s petition raised a larger issue on interpretation of Section 19 of PMLA, which says if an ED officer, on the basis of material in his possession, has reason to believe (that reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person was guilty of money laundering, then he may arrest such person and inform him of the grounds for such arrest.
The bench said it has to be examined how far the court can go to examine whether the objective materials are sufficient enough to trigger arrest and the subjective decision of the officer. The court said there was a higher-than-normal threshold of arrest under PMLA.
