The Wire Staff 
New Delhi: The Delhi high court today, June 25, stayed a trial court bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case.
LiveLaw has reported that Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain allowed the Enforcement Directorate’s application against Kejriwal’s bail, saying that the vacation bench judge did not “appropriately appreciate the material on record and the averments of the ED.”
Vacation Judge Niyay Bindu of the Rouse Avenue Court had, on June 20, made scathing observations against the ED while granting Kejriwal bail, saying that the central agency – under the control of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union government – had acted with bias against the Delhi chief minister and opposition leader.
The high court also took exception to these observations. It said that the trial judge’s not that the voluminous record was not perused was “totally unjustified” and showed that the trial court has not applied its mind to the material, LiveLaw reported.
The high court, this report said, also accepted the ED’s submission that proper opportunity was not granted to it by the trial judge to present the case.
The ED arrested Kejriwal on March 21 alleging that the Delhi chief minister used money received from liquor sellers to fund party activities. Many from Kejriwal’s party, including former Delhi deputy chief minister are jailed in this case – a fact which has prompted the opposition to allege vendetta politics by the BJP.
The ED had moved Delhi high court against the trial court’s bail on June 21 and was heard on the very same day by the high court’s vacation judge, Justice Jain. The high court had reserved judgment last week but stayed the bail order.
Kejriwal then moved the Supreme Court and a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and S.V.N. Bhatti adjourned the hearing to June 24, noting that the high court’s move to reserve an order on the ED’s stay application against Arvind Kejriwal’s bail was “a bit unusual” as stay orders are usually passed immediately after hearings are completed.
The apex court stressed that passing any order would amount to “pre-judging the issue” and said it would await the high court’s final order. The matter has been listed for hearing tomorrow, June 26.