On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted bail to Sanjay Singh, a leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and a Rajya Sabha MP, in connection with a money laundering case related to the Delhi liquor policy. This decision came after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) conceded to his bail application.
The ED informed the court that it had no objections to Singh being granted bail, prompting the Court to order his release on bail. However, it clarified that its decision did not imply any judgment on the merits of the case.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, and PB Varale specified that Singh would be allowed to engage in political activities while on bail. Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that its order should not be considered a precedent, and Singh was prohibited from making any public statements regarding the case.
Earlier in the day, during the forenoon session, the bench had directed the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju to determine whether Singh’s further custody was necessary. In the absence of specific instructions, the ASG was permitted to argue on the merits of the case.
When the bench reconvened at 2 PM, Raju stated, “Without delving into the merits, I will concede to the bail plea considering the unique circumstances of the case.”
The bench sought the ED’s stance after considering arguments presented by Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Singh’s behalf. Singhvi highlighted exculpatory statements made by approver Dinesh Arora and the absence of any recovered money.
“Not a single penny has been recovered; there’s no trace,” the bench remarked during the hearing.
In a brief recap, Sanjay Singh was arrested by the ED on October 4, 2023, and has been in judicial custody since then. The ED alleges that Singh received Rs. 2 crores on two occasions from an employee of businessman Dinesh Arora. Arora later became an approver in both ED and CBI cases. Singh’s bail plea was rejected by the Delhi High Court in February this year, following an earlier dismissal of his petition challenging his arrest and remand in the money laundering case.
The Supreme Court is currently hearing two special leave petitions filed by Singh. The first challenges his arrest and remand, while the second seeks bail.
During today’s hearing, Singhvi argued that the ED’s case against Singh relied solely on Arora’s statements, who initially made nine exculpatory statements before implicating Singh. Singhvi also questioned the necessity of Singh’s arrest and criticized the ED’s handling of exculpatory statements as “unreliable documents” inaccessible to Singh.
He urged the Court to intervene and stop this perceived injustice, describing it as a “travesty of justice”.
In the courtroom session, Justice Khanna raised a pivotal query to Singhvi, inquiring whether the purported Rs. 2 crores formed a component of the predicate offense. Singhvi, in response, negated this suggestion, signifying the importance of the question at hand.
An intriguing moment during the proceedings unfolded when the bench proposed a hypothetical scenario, questioning whether the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which addresses a standalone offense, would be applicable. Justice Khanna pondered aloud, “If PMLA is considered a separate offense… suppose someone accepts a bribe, can we, under the PMLA Act, mandate that the bribe amount should also be subject to attachment before initiating criminal proceedings?” This inquiry from the bench underscored the nuanced legal aspects surrounding the PMLA.
Furthermore, the bench emphasized that the essence of PMLA lies in the forfeiture of laundered money and encouraged the counsels to explore, albeit not relevant to the present case, whether PMLA would be invoked if an individual were caught accepting a bribe.
In response to these deliberations, Singhvi succinctly stated, “PMLA offense is contingent upon the predicate offense. If attachment or discovery of the proceeds is not feasible, then there are no proceeds of crime.” He reiterated the centrality of “proceeds of crime” to the offense, while Raju highlighted that PMLA also covers instances of concealment.
Delving into the specifics of the case, the bench acknowledged the existence of nine exculpatory statements favoring Singh, as provided by Dinesh Arora, and noted the absence of any recovered funds. Justice Khanna underscored this point by remarking, “Nothing has been recovered; there is no trace,” emphasizing the significance of tangible evidence in legal proceedings.
