Will pass order on Arvind Kejriwal bail plea immediately after hearing, will not reserve order: Delhi court

A Delhi Court Wednesday said that it would pronounce its decision on Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's bail plea in the Delhi excise policy case immediately on completion of arguments. .Vacation Judge Niyay Bindu clarified that she would not reserve her order. "I will not reserve order. Everyone knows it is a high-profile matter. I will pass the order after hearing it. I will not reserve the order," Judge Bindu said.The Court today heard the arguments made by Kejriwal's counsel. Enforcement Directorate (ED) also made arguments at length but could not complete them today. "I have to pass some orders (in other cases) and give dasti copies," the judge said as she deferred the hearing to Thursday..Kejriwal, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in March this year on money laundering charges in the Delhi excise policy case, has moved for regular bail for the first time.His application to allow his wife Sunita Kejriwal to remain present during his examination by medical board was also heard today. The Court had earlier called for a report from the Tihar Jail in this regard. It had made it clear that it was seeking a response from the Tihar Jail and not the ED as Kejriwal is in judicial custody and the central agency has no role to play when it comes to him seeking relief like treatment inside jail. .Arguments for bail.Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, representing Kejriwal, today argued that the entire case against him was based on the statements of those "who are not only tainted" but were arrested and given the promise of bail for supporting the ED's case. "They were promised pardon. They are no saints. These people were lured. There is a question on the credibility of these people," Chaudhary said, while referring to approvers in the case. Alleging that the statements against Kejriwal are of questionable veracity and lack material corroboration, Chaudhary said,"The statements were made after they were arrested by the ED and after they failed to get bail. The ED bartered their personal liberty for statements."In particular, Chaudhary referred to the statement of the Lok Sabha member Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy - whose son Raghava Magunta Reddy is an approver in the case. He also submitted that MP Reddy is part of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led alliance at the Centre. "He was asked specifically about me, he says he did not meet me in connection with excise policy. Later he makes a statement regarding me, his son then gets interim bail. Later he is granted pardon as well," the Court was told.Kejriwal's counsel also questioned the timing of his arrest in March this year before the Lok Sabha elections. He alleged that most of the statements on the basis of which Kejriwal's arrest was being justified were already available with them even in 2023. "Most of the statements were available to them much before that. The last statement recorded by them is August 2023. They are on record saying I am not an accused and that I am being summoned in my personal capacity. When they arrest me, they mention my role as CM and convenor of AAP [Aam Aadmi Party]," Chaudhary said..Chaudhary also argued that ED's role in the case was deplorable. "Whatever accusations they are levelling is like they are prosecuting me in the CBI case, not PMLA. They are harping on my conduct. If my conduct is bad, it is to be determined by the CBI. ED can only probe my role in money laundering," it was submitted.Chaudhary further submitted that there was no money trail or corroborative evidence in the case against the CM. "These are all in the form of statements. I will not be surprised if some more statements come to fill in lacunae. This investigation is unending, it will continue till eternity. It is the biggest instrument of oppression," he submitted.While pressing for the CM's bail, Chaudhary also referred to his ailments."The question is how will my lord view the arrest of a sitting CM in a case which was going on for a year-and-half before the arrest. Please see that the arrest was when the election was announced. Please also keep in mind the evidence that is against me. These statements are by tainted people," he said in conclusion. .Arguments against bail.In response, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, who represented the ED, argued that Kejriwal had not been summoned as an accused in the case but now prosecution complaint has been filed and cognisance of money laundering offence has been taken by the Special Court."There is a judgement of the Supreme Court that says if the cognisance of an offence is taken, it means, prima facie, there is an offence," Raju said.At this stage, the Court said,"I want to know if the cognisance has been taken what is the exact language used by the court while summoning Arvind Kejriwal."Raju responded that the order was reserved. The Court said it would like to see the order to see the exact language. It then asked the ASG to address on the issues raised by Chaudhary that Kejriwal was not named in the main case probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and that the ED case was was based on approver statements. "They have also said that he is a constitutional functionary and not a habitual offender," Judge Bindu said..On statements of approvers, ASG Raju said that lack of antecedents cannot be a ground for grant of bail."The ground is only that he is not guilty of offence punishable under PMLA. Please look at Section 45 PMLA. It does not say anything about antecedents or that because someone holds a constitutional post, he can be granted bail," he added. The ED counsel also said that Kejriwal's role had come up CBI investigation as well. It was also submitted that timing of the arrest was immaterial."He says that the statements are not credible. The credibility of the statements can only be considered at the stage of trial. It cannot be looked into at the stage of bail. At bail stage, a mini-trial cannot be held," Raju said.On the argument that the ED case was based on statements of approvers, Raju said pardon for such accused was an inducement and in accordance with the law.An approver cannot be discredited because he has been given an inducement, he added."In a case when the prosecution finds it difficult to get the evidence, approvers are made. The law recognises approvers and law says they can be given inducements. The entire purpose of making approver is giving inducements. You are given a carrot... It is the law. ".On Kejriwal's alleged role in the case, ASG Raju said he was liable not only in personal capacity but also vicariously since is in charge of the Aam Aadmi Party."He demanded a bribe of ₹100 crore, how can you say he is not prima facie guilty of the offence?," the ED asked.ED will continue with its arguments on June 20, Thursday.