New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 2) granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh, arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam case. The central agency has arrested multiple opposition leaders, including Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLC K. Kavitha, in the case.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and Prasanna B. Varale ordered that Singh should be released on bail during the pendency of the trial. This happened after the ED lawyer told the court that he may be released on bail.
Before the lunch break, according to Bar and Bench, to court asked Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju to get instructions on whether further custody of Singh – who was arrested on October 4 last year – was required. After the break, Raju told the bench that though the ED had an arguable case, it was ready to concede and thus Singh may be released on bail.
The ED’s decision to not push for custody came after the Supreme Court bench said that if it decides to grant bail to Singh on merits, it may have to observe in his favour considering the mandate of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to Bar and Bench, “Section 45 of the PMLA requires the Court to provide the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to oppose the bail application of the accused. It also states that the Court can release the accused only if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”
In February, Singh, who was re-elected to the Rajya Sabha while in custody, was given permission to take oath by the court. However, the House secretariat said that he cannot take oath.
The decision on Singh’s bail came on the same day as AAP leader Atishi alleging that the Bharatiya Janata Party was threatening her and other AAP leaders with arrest in the case if they do not switch over to the saffron party.
AAP and opposition parties have consistently held that this case is a way for the BJP-led Union government to harass opposition leaders using central agencies.
