Sanjay Singh gets bail; no money trail trace: SC

The Bench said that there were still contradictions in Mr. Arora’s statements.

The court cautioned the ED that it may have to pronounce a detailed order, citing explicit reasons, as required under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), in case it decided to grant Mr. Singh bail.

Justice Khanna warned the ED that it would have to risk the possibility of such an order if it chose to argue against the bail. “If we pass an order, we have to record reasons in terms of Section 45 and state that he has not prima facie committed an offence,” Justice Khanna told Mr. Raju.

Justice Khanna also subtly pointed out to the agency that such an order granting bail would have later ramifications for the outcome of the entire liquor policy case, especially during trial.

Changing tack, the ED said that it would not oppose the bail in view of the “peculiar facts” but argued that the order should not be treated as a precedent. The Central agency said that though the case against Mr. Singh was arguable, it did not want to. The agency urged the court to record that it had not argued its case against the bail application.

Arguing for Mr. Singh, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi said that the ED case against his client was entirely based on a statement made by Mr. Arora, who had exculpated the AAP leader the previous nine times. He said that the case against Mr. Singh was now motivated by a vendetta, after he had given a press conference.

He added that the absence of a money trail ideally meant there were no proceeds of crime. He highlighted that Mr. Singh deserved bail as he has been in custody for half a year now.