Supreme Court Grants Bail To AAP MP Sanjay Singh In PMLA Case After ED's Concession

Read Time:4 Minute, 32 Second

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 2) granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh in the money laundering case related to the Delhi liquor policy case after a concession was made by the Directorate of Enforcement(ED).

After the ED said that it had no objection to the grant of bail, the Court ordered the release of Sanjay Singh on bail, clarifying that the Court had not expressed anything on merits.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, and PB Varale clarified that Singh would be entitled to indulge in political activities during the period of bail. The bench also stated that the order would not be treated as a precedent. Singh is not supposed to make any public statement regarding the case, the Court added.

During the hearing in the forenoon session, the bench had asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju to obtain instructions on whether further custody of Singh is required. If there are no instructions, the ASG can argue on merits and the matter will be decided on merits, the bench stated.

When the bench reassembled at 2 PM, Raju said, “Without going into merits, I will make a concession in the bail matter in the peculiar facts.”

The Bench sought the ED’s stand after hearing arguments led by Sr Adv Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of Singh and noting that there were exculpatory statements by approver-Dinesh Arora and no money had been recovered.

“Nothing has been recovered, there is no trace,” the bench observed during the hearing.

To recap briefly, Sanjay Singh, currently in judicial custody, was arrested by the ED on October 4, 2023, following searches at his residence in Delhi. The central agency alleges that an employee of businessman Dinesh Arora delivered Rs. 2 crores to Singh’s house on two occasions. Singh’s arrest followed accusations made by Arora, who later turned approver in both the ED and CBI cases. ED claims that it had digital evidence to confront Singh with.

The Delhi High Court rejected his bail plea in February this year. This was preceded by rejection in October last year of Singh’s petition challenging arrest and remand in connection with the money laundering case.

As such, the Supreme Court is hearing two special leave petitions filed by the arrested MP. The first plea is a challenge against his arrest and remand in the money laundering case, while the second is a bail application.

During the hearing today, Singhvi emphasized that the entire ED case against Singh is based on the statement of approver-turned Dinesh Arora, who made 9 exculpatory statements before finally naming Singh. It was highlighted that Arora was granted bail on ED’s “no-objection”, while the concerned court remarked that ED was “playing smart”.

Singhvi alleged that this no-objection was leveraged to obtain the Section 50 statement later given by Arora, naming Singh. He also claimed that the ED launched a vendetta after Singh held a press conference, saying, the agency officers came to his house right after that.

The Senior Counsel further questioned the necessity of Singh’s arrest and ED’s conduct of putting exculpatory statements made by Arora in “unrelied documents”, which Singh cannot see or get. He beseeched the Court to stop this practice, calling it a “travesty of justice”.

“Dinesh Arora was sent to judicial custody, after which he made an allegation for the first time. Apart from this, there are unrelied documents, another travesty of justice…Is it fair for the prosecution to put this statement in unrelied? I can’t see or get it. Dinesh Arora is their star witness, they give him a pardon etc. This practice of relying on X but not Y must be stopped by the Court”, Singhvi said, alleging further that ED was trying to get Dinesh Arora bail without making it look that way.

Justice Khanna could be heard asking Singhvi as to whether the alleged amount of Rs. 2 crores is part of a predicate offense. Pointing that it was a very important question, Singhvi replied in the negative.

Another interesting aspect of the hearing was a hypothetical scenario suggested by the Bench to ask if PMLA, which is for a standalone offense, would be attracted. “If you treat PMLA as a separate offense…suppose someone takes a 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?” Justice Khanna asked.

The bench emphasized that PMLA is meant for forfeiture of money laundered and asked the counsels to examine (although the question is not arising in the present case) whether PMLA would be attracted if a person is caught red-handed accepting bribe.

Even still, Singhvi replied briefly, “PMLA offense has to act on predicate offense. If you accept you are unable to attach, you accept you are unable to find. Therefore, there is no proceeds of crime”. While he pressed that “proceeds of crime” is the anchor of the offense, Raju underlined that even concealment is covered by PMLA.

On facts, the Bench took into account the claim of 9 exculpatory statements in favor of Singh (made by Dinesh Arora) as well as that of non-recovery of any money. “Nothing has been recovered, there is no trace”, remarked Justice Khanna.

Accordingly, the ED counsel was asked to obtain instructions if further detention of Singh is required.