File photo of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
Credit: PTI Photo
A Delhi court, which has granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in liquor scam case, has said that the Enforcement Directorate has failed to give any direct evidence. It also held the ED has acted not without bias against him in the case.
Vacation Judge Niyay Bindu in her order on Thursday, released on Friday, took exception to the ED's submission that investigation is an art, saying it is not a potable submission.
"If it is so, then, any person can be implicated and kept behind the bars by artistically procuring the material against him after artistically avoiding/withdrawing exculpatory material from the record. This very scenario constrains the court to draw an inference against the investigating agency that it is not acting without bias,” the judge said.
In other observations, the court said the justice should not only be done but seen to be done.
“If an accused has underwent the atrocities of the system till his innocence is realized, then he could never be able to conceive that "justice" has actually been done in his favour,” the court said, while granting regular bail to Kejriwal, arrested by the ED on March 21.
The court also noted the ED could respond to certain issues raised by Kejriwal, including that he was not named either in CBI case or in the ECIR FIR.
“The allegations against the applicant have surfaced after the subsequent statements of certain co- accused," it said.
The judge also pointed out the accused has not been summoned by the court till date, yet, he was lying in the judicial custody at the instance of the ED on the pretext of the investigation being still going on.
The court also found that the ED has not shown anything on record that co-accused Vijay Nair was acting upon the directions of Kejriwal or even if other accused Vinod Chauhan has close relations with accused Charanpreet Singh, how come it was going to help ED to establish Kejriwal's guilt.
The court also pointed out voluminous documents have been filed in the case but only those which were relevant for the purpose of the bail are to be considered.
"Admittedly, the present matter is a peculiar case wherein various accused, witnesses and stake holders are involved and neither ED nor the defense wants the order to be passed in favour of the other. However, it is not possible to go through these thousands of pages of the documents at this juncture but this is the duty of the court to work upon the matter whichever comes for consideration and pass the order in accordance with the law," the court said.