The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing regarding Arvind Kejriwal’s petition challenging the suspension of his bail
The Supreme Court postponed the hearing on Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal against the Delhi High Court’s temporary suspension of his bail granted by a lower court. The case is now scheduled for June 26.
A bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti opted to await the high court’s ruling before proceeding further.
The Enforcement Directorate had challenged the lower court’s decision to grant bail to Kejriwal, which led to the Delhi High Court temporarily halting its implementation pending a final decision.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued for the Delhi Chief Minister’s freedom until the high court adjudicates on the Enforcement Directorate’s petition, citing an existing bail order and asserting no flight risk.
Assistant Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate, informed the Supreme Court that the high court’s decision was imminent, likely within a day.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the complexity of the matter and refrained from issuing a premature ruling, emphasizing the high court’s authority over such issues.
Arvind Kejriwal, national convener of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), faced arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21, narrowly missing release from Tihar jail on Friday due to the high court’s interim stay.
After over two months in detention, Kejriwal was granted bail by Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court in the liquor policy case on Thursday, prompting the ED to appeal to the high court the following morning.
The Delhi High Court, however, suspended the lower court’s decision until it decides on the ED’s petition, stating that the order’s enforcement would remain on hold until further notice.
Justice Sudhir Kumar of the vacation bench indicated that a decision on the ED’s application could be expected in 2-3 days.
During the high court proceedings, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju criticized the lower court’s bail order as “lopsided, perverse, and one-sided,” arguing that crucial documents had not been adequately considered in reaching the decision.
https://www.openpr.com/news/3453242/smart-contracts-market-dominates-revenue-aims-for-usd-1-417
