The Supreme Court order in the Arvind Kejriwal case said interim bail is granted on the basis of individual facts of each case.
A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta has thus negated any propensity to use the interim bail order in the case of Mr. Kejriwal as a judicial precedent in the future.
“Power to grant interim bail is commonly exercised in a number of cases. Interim bail is granted in the facts of each case. This case is not an exception,” the order said on Friday.
The terse three sentences in the order countered arguments by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) that interim bail for the Delhi Chief Minister would be misused by unscrupulous politicians to seek the same relief.
“There are many politicians in judicial custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Their cases were examined by competent courts which upheld their custody. There are also several political leaders in judicial custody throughout the country in non-PMLA offences… If the court extends any interim relief to Mr. Kejriwal, there is no gain saying that all of them would claim similar treatment claiming that politicians are a class of their own,” the ED had contended in its affidavit on May 9.
The Bench noted that the term ‘‘interim bail’ is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. But that has not stopped courts from extending jailed persons this temporary relief under compelling circumstances.
“‘Interim’ bail entailing temporary release can be granted under compelling circumstances and grounds, even when regular bail would not be justified,” the apex court said.
A situation of “intolerable grief and suffering” may be one of many reasons to justify the temporary release of an incarcerated person even though regular bail is not warranted, the Supreme Court pointed out.
“Such situations are not difficult to recount, though making a catalogue would be an unnecessary exercise,” the court said.
