On 10th May, 2024 the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to the Appellant Mr. Arvind Kejriwal who is the Chief minister of NCT of Delhi and currently in custody of the DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ( DoC) since March, 2024 and the deadline of the bail has been given as 1st June, 2024 as per the court.
Mr. Kejriwal who is been accused for charges under Prevention of Money laundering Act,2002 and several sections of the Indian Penal Code,1860 like Section 120-B and Section 447A .
During the hearing when the respondent who were representing the DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (DoC) had made several allegations and they mentioned that they are been given special treatment as compare to a common citizen. So, the court said :
“ Given the prodigious importance, we reject the argument raised on behalf of the prosecution that grant of interim bail/release on this account would be giving premium of placing the politicians in a benefic position compared to ordinary citizens of this country. While examining the question of grant of interim bail/release, the courts always take into consideration the peculiarities associated with the person in question and the surrounding circumstances. In fact, to ignore the same would be iniquitous and wrong.”
The Court had further mentioned that the granting of interim bail is a common exercise which is exercised by the courts in the country. So, this case is not an exception at all.
The Court had also mentioned about the negative points about the Appellant and about the wrong doings that the Appellant Mr. Arvind kejriwal. The Court said : The prosecution has rightly pointed out that the appellant – Arvind Kejriwal had failed to appear in spite of nine (9) notices/summons, first of which was issued in October 2023. This is a negative factor, but there are several other facets which we are required to take into consideration. The appellant –Arvind Kejriwal is the Chief Minister of Delhi and a leader of one of the national parties. No doubt, serious accusations have been made, but he has not been convicted. He does not have any criminal antecedents. He is not a threat to the society. The investigation in the present case has remained pending since August 2022. Arvind Kejriwal was arrested, as noted above, on 21.03.2024. More importantly, legality and validity of the arrest itself is under challenge before this Court and we are yet to finally pronounce on the same. The fact situation cannot be compared with harvesting of crops or plea to look after business affairs. In this background, once the matter is subjudice and the questions relating to legality of arrest are under consideration, a more holistic and libertarian view is justified, in the background that the 18th Lok Sabha General Elections are being held.
While concluding it’s judgment, the two judge Bench of justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta had also mentioned some terms and conditions also before granting the interim bail to the Appellant Mr. Arvind kejriwal. The conditions are :
(a) he shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
(b) he shall not visit the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat.
(c) he shall be bound by the statement made on his behalf that he shall not
sign official files unless it is required and necessary for obtaining clearance/ approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
(d) he will not make any comment with regard to his role in the present
Case.
(e) he will not interact with any of the witnesses and/or have access to any
official files connected with the case.
CASE NAME – ARVIND KEJRIWAL VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ( 2024)
NAME- DAKSH SRIVASTAVA, G.D. GOENKA UNIVERSITY, B.A.LLB, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments