Breaking: Following ED’s concession, the Supreme Court grants AAP MP Sanjay Singh bail in the PMLA case.
(image:- google)
Following a concession from the Directorate of Enforcement, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 2, granted bail to Sanjay Singh, the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), in the money laundering case pertaining to the Delhi liquor policy issue.
Sanjay Singh was granted bail by the Court, which made it clear that it had made no ruling about merits, following the ED’s declaration that it had no objections to the bail being granted.
The panel of judges, which included PB Varale, Dipankar Datta, and Sanjiv Khanna, said that Singh would have the freedom to engage in political activities while he was out on bail. The bench further declared that there would be no precedence for this order.
At 2:00 PM, ED’s Additional Solicitor General SV Raju gave the concession. The bench had ordered the SV Raju to get guidance on whether Singh has to be detained for longer during the hearing in the afternoon session.
At 2:00 PM, Raju announced, “Without going into merits, I will make a concession in the bail matter in the peculiar facts,” when the bench reconvened.
After listening to arguments made by Senior Adviser Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Singh’s behalf, the Bench asked the ED for its position, noting that approver Dinesh Arora had made exonerating remarks and that no money had been recovered.
During the hearing, the bench noted, “Nothing has been recovered, there is no trace.”
To summarize, on October 4, 2023, the ED conducted searches at Sanjay Singh’s Delhi home and took him into judicial custody. Two deliveries totaling Rs. 2 crores were allegedly made to Singh’s residence by a business associate of businessman Dinesh Arora, according to the central agency. After making allegations, Arora became an approver in the ED and CBI cases, and Singh was arrested as a result. According to ED, it could present Singh with digital evidence.
In February of this year, the Delhi High Court denied his request for bail. Prior to this, Singh’s plea contesting his arrest and remand in relation to the money laundering case was denied in October of last year.
As a result, the two exceptional leave requests that the arrested MP filed are being heard by the Supreme Court. In the money laundering case, the first plea challenges his arrest and imprisonment, and the second plea requests bail.
The whole ED case against Singh, according to Singhvi during today’s court, is predicated on the testimony of Dinesh Arora, the former approver who ultimately named Singh after making nine statements that cleared him. The fact that Arora was given bail despite ED’s “no-objection” was emphasized, and the court in question observed that ED was “playing smart.”
According to Singhvi, this no-objection was used as leverage to get Arora to provide the Section 50 statement that named Singh later. Additionally, he asserted that the ED began a personal vendetta against Singh following the latter’s public address, claiming that agency representatives promptly visited his home.
The Senior Counsel further questioned the need for Singh’s arrest and the actions of the ED in placing Arora’s exonerated comments in “unrelied documents” that Singh is unable to view or get. He called it a “travesty of justice” and pleaded with the Court to end this practice.
“Dinesh Arora first made an allegation after being placed in judicial custody.” In addition, there are records that have been falsified, which is another injustice.Is it appropriate that the prosecution included this comment without a response? It is invisible to me. Their star witness, Dinesh Arora, has been pardoned, among other things. According to Singhvi, the ED is attempting to obtain Dinesh Arora’s bail without making it appear as though they are doing so. “The Court must put an end to this practice of relying on X but not Y.”
It was audible that Justice Khanna questioned Singhvi about whether the purported sum of Rs. 2 crores was a part of the underlying crime. Singhvi responded negatively, highlighting how crucial the question was.
Breaking: Following ED’s concession, the Supreme Court grants AAP MP Sanjay Singh bail in the PMLA case.
The Bench posed a hypothetical question throughout the hearing regarding whether PMLA—which covers a stand-alone offense—would be invoked. This was an intriguing addition to the proceedings. “If you treat PMLA as separate offense…suppose someone takes bribe, can we in terms of PMLA Act, require that that bribe amount should have been also made subject matter of attachment before invoking criminal proceedings?” Judge Khanna enquired.
The bench underlined that PMLA is intended to forfeit money that has been laundered and requested the attorneys to investigate whether PMLA would apply if someone was discovered accepting a bribe in the open. This is not a subject that comes up in this particular case, though.
Singhvi curtly retorted, “PMLA offense must act on predicate offense,” despite this. You acknowledge that you are unable to find if you concede that you cannot attach. As a result, there are no criminal proceeds.” Raju emphasized that even concealment is covered by PMLA, notwithstanding his insistence that the “proceeds of crime” serve as the foundation of the violation.
Regarding the facts, the Bench considered the assertion that Singh had received nine statements from Dinesh Arora that cleared him, along with the fact that no money had been recovered. “There is no trace, nothing has been recovered,” Justice Khanna declared.
As a result, the ED counsel was requested to get guidance on whether Singh has to be detained for any longer.
Case Specifics
- 1. Sanjay Singh v. Union of India and Others | Criminal Special Leave Petition No. 14510 of 2023
- 2. Sanjay Singh v. Enforcement Directorate | Criminal Special Leave Petition No. 2558 of 2024
read also:- Arvind Kejriwal’s prison books and personal belongings that the judge permitted him to bring