In a significant turn of events, the Delhi High Court has stayed the decision to grant bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The High Court expressed strong disapproval of the trial court’s handling of the case, stating that the judge did not adequately consider the extensive material presented by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
High Court questions Trial Court’s Approach
The Delhi High Court pointed out that the trial court judge, Justice Nyay Bindu, failed to thoroughly examine the evidence provided by the ED. The High Court described this oversight as “perversity,” indicating a serious flaw in the judicial process. Furthermore, the High Court rejected the trial court’s assertion that the voluminous nature of the material justified not considering it in detail.
Section 45 PMLA Not Properly Discussed
A key aspect of the High Court’s criticism was the inadequate discussion of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the trial court. The High Court emphasized that this section, which deals with the stringent conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases, was not properly addressed, undermining the trial court’s decision.
Previous High Court Ruling Ignored
The High Court also refuted the trial court’s finding of malafides on the part of the ED. It highlighted that the High Court had previously rejected similar claims made by Kejriwal, reinforcing the notion that the trial court’s conclusions were flawed.
Political Reactions and Public Perception
The initial granting of bail to Kejriwal had been celebrated by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) as a triumph of democracy and constitutionalism over authoritarianism. However, with the High Court’s stay on the bail, the narrative has shifted dramatically. This development raises questions about Kejriwal’s legal standing and the implications of the ongoing investigation.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision to stay the trial court’s bail order for Arvind Kejriwal underscores the importance of judicial diligence and thorough examination of evidence in high-profile cases. As the legal proceedings continue, the focus remains on ensuring a fair and just process for all parties involved.
SHARE
