Delhi excise policy case: Bail to AAP’s Sanjay Singh, ED doesn’t oppose after SC says no money found

Singh was arrested on October 4, 2023 following a search of his North Avenue home. The ED alleged that businessman Dinesh Arora, an accused who later turned approver in the excise policy case, had given Rs 2 crore in cash to Singh.

The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and P B Varale, granted bail to Singh after ASG Raju conveyed the ED’s no-objection to allow the “concession” saying “I have no difficulty… In the peculiar facts of the case, I am making the statement. Without going into the merits of the matter.”

Accepting this, the bench, in its order, said the ASG “states that the respondent ED have no objection in case the appellant Sanjay Singh is released on bail during the pendency of the proceedings… In view of the statement made, we allow the appeal and direct that Sanjay Singh be released during pendency of the…proceedings… on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court”.

“We clarify that the concession given in the court today would not be treated as a precedent,” the bench said, adding “We must record that the concession has been made on behalf of the respondent Directorate before commencement of arguments on their side. We also clarify that we have not made any comments on the merits of the case.”

The order said “learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant Sanjay Singh will not make any comment with regard to his role in the present case”. The bench also observed orally that he would be entitled to undertake and continue with his political activities.

Singh had approached the Supreme Court after a trial court rejected his prayer for bail in October 2023, and then the Delhi High Court in February this year.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Singh who had challenged his arrest and sought bail, said the case against him was solely based on the statements of accused-turned-approver Dinesh Arora who had not named him initially.

He said Singh was arrested after Arora’s statement that he had paid money to someone close to the AAP leader.

Singhvi said Arora made the allegations for the first time after he was sent to judicial custody. “Is it fair for the prosecution to put his statement… Dinesh Arora is their star witness, they give him pardon etc. This practice of relying on X but not Y must be stopped by the court,” he said.

He said the ED came for Singh after he held a press conference. “They pounced on me after my press conference. Perhaps my press conference was foolish, but you can be foolish and outspoken in a free country,” Singhvi said.

The bench, which had taken up the case in the forenoon, asked the ASG if the ED really wanted to continue keeping Singh in custody since it was already six months. It sought to remind Raju of the consequences of a court order on the merits of the case and asked him to take instructions and inform the court when it assembled post lunch.

“Take instructions whether you really require him now after six months,” Justice Khanna told the ASG, adding, “The role that is attributed to him… Rs 2 crore… is a subject matter of trial… and the fact is, in the first set of statements, there is no such implication” regarding Singh.

Raju said he could explain.

But Justice Datta said, “Mr ASG, please keep in mind. If we are with him, we are required to record in terms of Section 45 (of Prevention of money Laundering Act) that he has prima facie not committed an offence. That could have its own ramifications in the trial. You have kept him in custody for 6 months. Please obtain instructions if further detention is necessary or not.”.

Section 45 of PMLA, which deals with bail conditions, says bail shall not be granted unless “where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application (for bail), the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail”.

“You have that option under Section 45. Because look, facts are facts. The fact is Dinesh Arora initially has not implicated him. Later on, he does. So there is a slight change in his version,” he said.

The ASG said, “There are reasons.”

“He may have,” Justice Khanna said, adding, “But when we look at Section 45 or for that matter even 19, we have to take these factors into account. And accomplice etc… it has to be tested when he comes to the witness box. He is saying that… no money has been recovered, that trace of money is not there, because it was long back.”

As the ASG tried to explain why it could not be recovered, Justice Khanna said, “We are not going into that question at this stage but the fact of the matter is money has not been recovered.”

ASG Raju returned to the court at 2 pm with instructions and informed the bench about the ED not opposing grant of bail to Singh.