GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, in a money laundering case related to the Delhi liquor policy, after the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) made a concession.
During the hearing, the ED expressed no objection to the grant of bail, leading the Court to order Singh's release on bail while clarifying that no judgment on the case's merits had been made. The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, and PB Varale, also permitted Singh to engage in political activities during the bail period, emphasising that the order would not set a precedent. However, Singh was instructed not to make any public statements regarding the case.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
Earlier in the day, the bench had sought instructions from the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju regarding Singh's further custody. Subsequently, Raju informed the Court that, without delving into merits, he would concede to bail in the "peculiar facts" of the case.
The Court's decision followed arguments led by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, on behalf of Singh, highlighting exculpatory statements by approver Dinesh Arora and the absence of any recovered money. Singh's arrest in October 2023 stemmed from accusations made by Arora, who later turned approver in the case. The ED alleges that Singh received Rs. 2 crores at his residence on two occasions from a businessman's employee.
Singh's bail plea was previously rejected by the Delhi High Court in February this year, following his arrest and remand in the money laundering case. The Supreme Court is currently hearing two special leave petitions filed by Singh challenging his arrest and seeking bail.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Pulls Up ‘Defiant’ Ramdev Over Misleading Patanjali Ads; Centre Censured
During the hearing, Singhvi emphasised that the entire ED case against Singh relied on Arora's statements, which were made only after numerous exculpatory statements. Singhvi also criticised the ED's conduct and alleged vendetta against Singh. He questioned the necessity of Singh's arrest and the handling of exculpatory statements by the ED.
The bench, taking note of the exculpatory statements and the absence of recovered money, directed the ED counsel to ascertain if further detention of Singh was necessary.