Legal experts and AAP leaders have framed the situation as a questionable exercise of judicial discretion, with criticism targeting the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) insistence on challenging the trial court’s decision. According to AAP’s legal team, the high court’s stay was implemented before the trial court's official order was available for review. Party spokesperson Priyanka Kakkar underscored that AAP would pursue all legal avenues to overturn the decision, contending that “no substantial evidence” ties Kejriwal to the alleged scheme.
The bail was initially granted on June 20 after the trial court found insufficient cause to detain Kejriwal, allowing his release on a personal bond. Following an ED appeal, however, the high court issued a stay on the order, asserting that the trial court had not adequately weighed the evidence or allowed sufficient argument from the ED’s counsel before rendering its decision. The stay indicates that further hearings will determine the future of Kejriwal’s bail status, sparking intense public and political debate.
Delhi BJP President Virendra Sachdeva welcomed the high court’s stay, reiterating that ongoing investigations have reportedly linked Kejriwal and other senior AAP officials to irregularities in the excise policy. Sachdeva stated that the findings emphasize Kejriwal’s role as a central figure in the case, arguing that the high court’s intervention is a critical step toward accountability. AAP leaders have contested these claims, countering that the ED’s case is politically motivated, without tangible evidence against the chief minister.
As the dispute intensifies, AAP has signaled it may escalate the matter to the Supreme Court if the high court does not reverse the stay order. Senior party leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh described the case as unprecedented in judicial history, arguing that the high court's order lacked transparency. According to Singh, AAP believes the ED’s procedural approach reflects external influence on the judicial process, stating that this perception underpins the party’s legal strategy moving forward.
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, presiding over the vacation bench, ruled that the trial court’s decision showed insufficient deliberation on the presented evidence. The court’s order highlighted procedural lapses in the initial bail decision, citing a lack of opportunity for the ED to substantiate its argument against the release of Kejriwal. Although AAP leaders condemned the ruling, the high court maintained that the ED’s petition warranted more extensive examination than initially provided.