- “The Observation by the trial court that voluminous material cannot be considered is unjustified and it shows that the trial court has not applied its mind to the material,” the Delhi High Court said.
- “The vacation court ought to give adequate opportunity to the Enforcement Directorate to argue bail application. There was a strong argument that the twin condition of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not deliberated by the vacation judge. This court believes that Section 45 PMLA has not been properly discussed by the trial court,” the court said.
- “Importantly, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) referred to para 27 of the trial court order where the judge talks about mala fide by the ED. But this court believes that a coordinate bench of this court has said there was no mala fide on the part of the ED. The trial court should not have given any finding which is opposite to the finding of the High Court,” the court stated in its order.
- “The trial court has not dealt with the argument of Section 70 PMLA as well. This court is also of the opinion that the Supreme Court granted bail to Mr Kejriwal for the Lok Sabha election.”
- “Once his plea challenging arrest has been dismissed by the High Court it cannot be said that his personal liberty was curtailed in violation of the law. The documents and arguments were not appreciated properly. Therefore, the impugned order is stayed,” the court added.
