Why Delhi HC Stayed Arvind Kejriwal's Bail Order in Excise Policy Case | Explained

New Delhi: Ending weeks of speculations, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday ordered stay on trial court's order granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the money laundering case linked to the alleged excise policy scam.

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) responded to the development, stating that they will move to the Supreme Court as the bail can't be stayed in such manner. “We dissent with the decision of the High Court. We will challenge this decision in the Supreme Court. The order on bail can't be stayed in this manner, the Supreme Court too has said this yesterday,” said Delhi's ruling party.

Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain allowed the plea moved by Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking stay of the trial court's order. 

Kejriwal was granted bail by the trial court on June 21, and the probe agency moved the Delhi High Court challenging the bail order to the former on June 21. Justice Jain, the vacation judge of last week, heard ED's plea on Friday and reserved judgement in the stay application. 

Subsequently, Kejriwal moved the Supreme Court challenging the stay granted by the Delhi High Court. The apex court left to the High Court for decision on the stay order in big setback for Kejriwal. 

Why Kejriwal Was Denied Bail? 

The High Court observed that the trial court that approved bail for Kejriwal didn't properly appreciated the materials on record and averments furnished by the ED, the probe agency investigating the money laundering link to excise policy case. 

"This court has decided that the vacation judge did not appropriately appreciate the material on record and the averments of ED," the High Court pronounced.

Accordingly, the Delhi HC allowed the ED application seeking stay on trial court's bail order and stated that the operation of the impugned order is stayed.

The probe agency informed the High Court that the trial court order granting bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was based on "perverse" findings as it did not consider the material demonstrating his "neck deep involvement" in the offence of money laundering linked to the alleged excise scam.