A good poker player knows when to hold and when to fold.

After initially opposing Sanjay Singh’s application for bail, in a case filed by the enforcement directorate, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju was asked by the Supreme Court to consider his client’s position. The case against Singh was based upon a statement by a witness, who had initially not alleged criminality, but changed his statement much later. There had been no money ever recovered from Sanjay Singh and there appeared to be no possibility of proving that Singh had partaken of the proceeds of crime. Singh had been in custody for over six months and neither investigation or trial had made progress.

The court therefore asked ASG Raju, “….You have kept him in custody for 6 months. Dinesh Arora has not initially implicated him. Later on, in a statement, he does. No money has been recovered, the trace of money is not there because it was long back. Fact of the matter is money has not been recovered. Please keep in mind that if we are […] with him, we are required to record in terms of section 45 that he has prima facie not committed an offence. That could have its own ramifications in trial.”

Raju returned post lunch and threw in his hand. He said that he would not oppose the grant of bail, in the peculiar facts of the case. He did not want the order in the case to be cited as a precedent that would be applicable to the bail petitions of the other........

© The Wire