In a significant development, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was granted bail in the excise policy case by a Delhi court on Thursday. The court’s decision came as it questioned the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) failure to provide direct evidence linking Kejriwal to the alleged proceeds of crime.
The Special Judge Niyay Bindu, in her order, emphasized that the ED had not substantiated its claims against Kejriwal. “Prima facie, his guilt is yet to be established,” she stated, highlighting the lack of direct evidence implicating the Chief Minister. The judge also criticized the ED’s handling of the case, noting discrepancies in their approach and highlighting delays in the investigation process.
The court’s decision to grant bail was, however, short-lived as the Delhi High Court promptly stayed the order upon an appeal by the ED. The trial court’s order, which allowed Kejriwal’s release on bail on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh, had been made public on Friday.
Kejriwal and his Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) have been accused of receiving kickbacks amounting to ₹100 crore from the South Group, allegedly to manipulate the Delhi liquor policy in favor of licensees. The funds were purportedly utilized during the 2022 Goa assembly poll campaign, a claim vehemently denied by Kejriwal.
The judge’s order also raised concerns about procedural fairness, highlighting instances where accused individuals endure prolonged incarceration before being proven innocent. “It is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than an innocent person should suffer,” the judge quoted Benjamin Franklin, stressing the importance of ensuring justice without bias.
The ED had arrested Kejriwal on March 21, following which he sought relief from the courts. While interim bail was granted by the Supreme Court to facilitate his participation in electoral campaigns, Kejriwal has remained in judicial custody since June 2.
The case has sparked debates on judicial processes and the presumption of innocence, with implications for ongoing investigations into political funding and policy manipulation.
The next steps in the legal saga await further hearings and decisions by higher courts, underscoring the complexities involved in high-profile cases involving political figures.
