Kejriwal Not Allowed To Visit CM's Office Or Secretariat, Sign Official Files Unless Necessary For Approval Of LG Or Comment About His Role In Case: Bail Conditions By SC
The Supreme Court has imposed conditions while granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the case by the money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy scam. The following are the conditions imposed by the Apex Court:-
"(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; and
(e) he will not interact with any of the witnesses and/or have access to any official files connected with the case."
The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta noted in the order that though the hearing of the plea challenging legality of arrest is pending, "there is an intervening factor which has prompted us to consider and pass the present order, namely, 18th Lok Sabha General Elections, which are in progress".
The Court noted in the order that the General Elections is the most significant and an important event this year, as it should be in a national election year and that between 650-700 million voters out of an electorate of about 970 million will cast their votes to elect the government of this country for the next five years. "General Elections supply the vis viva to a democracy. 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 held.
The Court noted that though it is a negative factor that Kejriwal failed to appear in spite of nine notices/summons, first of which was issued in October 2023, he 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 Court held.
The Court pronounced its order earlier in the day, but had not given the reasons, which has come in the order that just been uploaded.
Pertinently, the Rouse Avenue Court Judge, on May 7 extended Kejriwal's judicial custody till May 20.
On May 7, the Supreme Court had clarified that, if it releases Kejriwal on bail, it does not want him to perform official duties.
Last week, the Court had observed that it may consider granting interim bail to Kejriwal on account of elections. Earlier on April 29, the Bench had asked the Senior Counsel appearing for the Delhi CM, "Why have you not filed any Application For bail?"
Previously, the Enforcement Directorate had filed an extensive Affidavit-in-reply to the Special Leave Petition by the Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal, assailing the order passed by the Delhi High Court upholding the arrest and remand in the money laundering case. In its reply, the ED had alleged that Arvind Kejriwal is the kingpin and key conspirator in the Delhi Liquor Policy Excise Scam, responsible for the mass destruction of evidence and the main facilitator of the new policy for the bribe givers.
The ED had earlier, stated in its Affidavit that there are reasons to believe based on material in possession that Kejriwal is guilty of the offence of Money Laundering. The ED had also made a comparative table to demonstrate the changes made that were allegedly arbitrary and irrational, made only to ensure large-scale profits to the bribe givers. It was also stated by the ED that Arvind Kejriwal was asked to provide the password to his mobile phones again and again, but he refused to share the same and even his statements during custody would reveal that despite being confronted with materials, the petitioner chose to give completely evasive answers.
Cause Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl) No. 5154/2024]
Click here to read/download order