The Enforcement Directorate (ED) sharply criticized a Delhi court's decision to grant bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the controversial excise policy case, describing the order as “perverse.” The comments were made during a hearing in the Delhi High Court on June 21.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, argued that the central probe agency was not given sufficient opportunity to oppose the bail granted to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader. Raju's contentions were part of a broader argument presented before Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain's vacation bench in the high court.
Raju claimed that during the lower court proceedings, he was not given adequate time to present his arguments. “When it was my turn, I was told I had only 15 minutes, but I needed half an hour. My arguments were curtailed,” he stated. The ASG alleged that the trial court dismissed the ED's substantial documentary evidence as bulky and irrelevant without proper examination. “There can’t be a more perverse order than this,” Raju said.
According to Raju, the trial court’s decision was made without thoroughly reviewing the documents provided by the ED. He argued, “Without perusing the documents, you cannot deem them irrelevant. This is perverse.” Raju insisted that his arguments were truncated and that he was not adequately heard. “The matter was decided without considering our evidence,” he asserted.
Raju criticized the trial court for concluding that the ED’s actions were malafide based on incorrect dates. The court noted discrepancies in the ED’s timeline, such as the agency’s possession of materials in July 2022 but registering the case only in August 2022. The trial court’s order noted that Kejriwal was summoned in August 2023, while he was actually called in October 2023, which Raju highlighted as an error.
The ED argued that the trial court considered irrelevant facts and overlooked significant details in its decision to grant bail. “The order is totally perverse,” Raju maintained. Raju mentioned that statements were made by bribe givers claiming Kejriwal demanded Rs 100 crore, but these were not considered by the trial court. He stressed that the ED had presented statements linking Kejriwal to the demand for ₹100 crore from the South Group.
The ED counsel argued that there were sufficient statements to demonstrate Kejriwal’s involvement in demanding Rs 100 crore, which were ignored by the trial court, calling the order “one-sided and lopsided.” Raju criticized the trial court’s citation of Benjamin Franklin’s saying about the guilty escaping over an innocent suffering, arguing it was more appropriate for trial stages, not for deciding bail.