Who Is Niyay Bindu, Judge Who Gave Bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in Liquor Policy Scam Case?

Acting on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) plea, the Delhi High Court on Friday stayed the bail granted by the trial court to Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal in the alleged money laundering case in the liquor policy scam. The now-paused order was passed by Rouse Avenue Court’s Special Judge Niyay Bindu on Thursday.

Kejriwal and the AAP have been accused of receiving kickbacks of Rs 100 crore from the South Group, a cartel of politicians, businessmen and others to rig the Delhi liquor policy in favour of licencees. The money was allegedly used in the 2022 Goa assembly poll campaign.

The ED had arrested Kejriwal on March 21, shortly after Delhi High Court refused to grant him protection from arrest on his petition challenging summonses issued to him. On May 10, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Kejriwal till June 1 to campaign in Lok Sabha elections, saying he will have to surrender and go back to jail on June 2. He is in jail ever since.

WHO IS SPECIAL JUDGE NIYAY BINDU?

• Special Judge Niyay Bindu has served as a senior civil judge in the Rohini court, Delhi North West district.
• She has served as senior civil judge in Dwarka.
• She is well-versed with both civil and criminal law, according to reports.

WHAT DID SHE SAY IN THE ORDER?

In the order granting relief to Kejriwal, which was made available on Friday, the vacation judge held that prima facie, his guilt was yet to be established. “It may be possible that some persons known to the applicant are having involvement in an offence….but the ED has failed to give any direct evidence against the applicant in respect of the proceeds of crime,” the judge said.

She also questioned the ED’s silence on Kejriwal’s assertion that he was arrested in the money laundering case related to the alleged excise scam without having been named in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s First Information Report (FIR) or the ECIR registered by the anti-money laundering agency. Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is ED’s version of an FIR.

“This is also noticeable that ED is silent about the facts as to how the proceeds of crime have been utilized in Assembly Elections in Goa by AAP as, admittedly, after about two years, the bigger portion of the alleged amount remains to be traced out,” the judge said.

The judge said the ED has failed to clarify how much time it will require to trace the complete money trail. “Meaning thereby that until and unless this exercise of tracing out the remaining amount gets completed by the ED, accused is supposed to remain behind bars that too without proper evidence against him. This is also not an acceptable submission of the ED,” the judge said.

QUOTED BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

The maxim of law that every person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty seems to be not applicable in the given case in respect of the present accused, she said. The judge quoted Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the US, to say, “It is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than an innocent person should suffer…This principle imposes a duty upon the court not only to prevent guilty individuals from escaping justice but also to ensure that no innocent should be punished. There have been thousands of cases where the accused underwent a long lasting trial and agony resulting from the same till the date they were acquitted by the court for being innocent. Unfortunately, the mental and physical agony of such person cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever. If an accused undergoes the atrocities of the system till his innocence is discovered, he would never be able to conceive that justice has actually been done to him.”

The judge said there are certain undisputed facts, as specified on behalf of the applicant, that in the month of July 2022, the material now with the ED was already available with it, but he was called only in August 2023, which shows the mala fide on the part of the central agency. “The probe agency has failed to answer this objection of the applicant,” the judge said.

She also dismissed the ED’s argument that “investigation is an art and sometimes one accused is given lollipop of bail and pardon and induced with some assurance to make them tell the story behind the offence”. “If it is so, then any person can be implicated and kept behind bars by artistically procuring the material against him after artistically avoiding/ withdrawing exculpatory material from the record. This very scenario constrains the court to draw an inference against the investigating agency that it is not acting without bias,” the judge said.

The judge noted that the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), appearing for the ED, talked about inducement to extract the truth against other accused involved in the matter. “But the effect of this submission goes to the conception that the complete truth cannot be revealed through the persons who have resiled from their previous statements. Rather, the complete truth shall be established on the basis of the incriminating material, if available on record which the investigating agency is under an obligation to procure in a legal manner by following the procedural aspects as well,” the judge said.

ALLEGATIONS AND CONDITIONS

The judge said the allegations against Kejriwal surfaced during subsequent statements of certain co-accused. She said it is also an admitted fact that he has not been summoned by the court after his arrest and is “lying in judicial custody at the instance of the ED on the pretext of the investigation being still on”. “On the prima facie basis, the guilt of the accused is yet to be established. In respect of the condition that he shall not involve in the offence after his release on bail, it is already undertaken so by the applicant in his application. Moreover, if bail is granted, the same shall be conditional which shall put the applicant under an obligation in this regard,” the judge said.

She said it is also noticeable that in the cases under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), bail becomes an impossible task to obtain as on one pretext or the other, the investigating agency gives its own reasons, which puts the accused in a situation almost akin to a convict without any hope to be released from the gloomy atmosphere of jail.

The judge had on Thursday ordered Kejriwal’s release on bail on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh. It, however, imposed certain conditions on the AAP leader before granting him the relief, including that he will not try to hamper the investigation or influence the witnesses. The judge had also directed Kejriwal to appear before the court whenever required and to cooperate with the investigation.

With PTI Inputs