Arvind Kejriwal On Thursday, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a significant development related to the ongoing Delhi excise policy case. This decision comes amid Kejriwal’s petitions challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and seeking regular bail. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Kejriwal, emphasized that Kejriwal poses no threat to society, arguing for his release.
The Supreme Court was reviewing Kejriwal’s petitions, which contested his detention by the CBI in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. The case has garnered considerable attention, particularly after the CBI filed its fourth supplementary chargesheet on July 30. This chargesheet implicated several high-profile individuals, including Kejriwal, Satyender Jain, Vinod Chauhan, Amit Arora, P Sarath Reddy, and Ashish Mathur. It labeled Kejriwal as one of the principal conspirators in the alleged irregularities surrounding the excise policy.
During the proceedings, Singhvi pointed out that Kejriwal was not mentioned in the original First Information Report (FIR) related to the case. He argued that the CBI’s arrest of Kejriwal, who was already in judicial custody, was procedurally incorrect. Singhvi asserted that the CBI’s action constituted an “insurance arrest,” intended to ensure that Kejriwal remained detained regardless of procedural lapses.
Singhvi contended that there was no substantial new evidence against Kejriwal since January, apart from a statement by Magunta from that period. He criticized the CBI for arresting Kejriwal on June 26, despite no arrests having been made in the case over the previous two years. Singhvi emphasized that Kejriwal, as a constitutional official, should not be considered a flight risk. He urged the Supreme Court to apply a rigorous assessment, or “triple test,” to determine if Kejriwal might flee, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.
The Supreme Court bench, after considering Singhvi’s arguments, highlighted that any arrest of an individual already in custody requires judicial permission. The bench remarked on the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in such cases, noting that the criminal procedure code mandates court approval for re-arresting individuals who are already under judicial oversight.
Singhvi underscored the need for safeguards against arbitrary arrests, criticizing what he described as a “trigger-happy” approach by the CBI. He argued that such actions should not be taken without substantial grounds and proper legal basis. The bench’s observations suggested a need for careful scrutiny of the procedures followed in the arrest of individuals who are already under judicial custody.
While the Supreme Court deliberated on Kejriwal’s bail, the Delhi High Court extended his judicial custody, adding to the complexity of the legal battle facing the Delhi Chief Minister. The extension highlights the ongoing legal and political challenges that Kejriwal and his party, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), are navigating amid the controversy surrounding the excise policy case.
The case has not only significant legal implications but also substantial political ramifications. Kejriwal’s interim bail, granted by the Supreme Court, marks a temporary reprieve for him, but the broader legal proceedings and the scrutiny they entail are likely to continue shaping the political landscape in Delhi.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal represents a crucial moment in the Delhi excise policy case. The proceedings have exposed procedural issues and highlighted the contentious nature of the case. As Kejriwal’s legal team argues against the validity of his arrest and the CBI’s actions, the ongoing legal developments will likely influence both the immediate legal context and the broader political dynamics in the region.
Insurance Arrest by CBI : Arvind Kejriwal Bail Plea Heard by Supreme Court
New Delhi: In a critical hearing before the Supreme Court, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and seeking bail in a high-profile case connected to the now-abandoned liquor policy of Delhi. The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, is currently deliberating on Kejriwal’s petitions.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Kejriwal in a separate Enforcement Directorate (ED) case, but he remains incarcerated due to the ongoing CBI investigation. If the Supreme Court grants him relief in the current matter, the Delhi Chief Minister, who has been in jail for over five months, would be released.
The CBI’s arrest of Kejriwal occurred on June 26, 2024. The Delhi High Court, on August 5, upheld the legality of this arrest, citing concerns that Kejriwal might influence witnesses.
Throughout the proceedings, the CBI’s counsel questioned whether Singhvi was conflating issues of bail with those of arrest. Singhvi responded by highlighting that the “triple test” for bail—addressing flight risk, evidence tampering, and witness influence—had been met. He also noted that other co-accused, including Vijay Nair, Manish Sisodia, and Sanjay Singh, had already been released, underscoring the inconsistency in the treatment of similar cases.
Singhvi reiterated that multiple chargesheets had been filed and argued against prolonged incarceration, asserting that the case’s complexities rendered a swift trial impractical. He referenced a previous judgment involving Manish Sisodia, which highlighted the difficulties in concluding trials related to the excise policy.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s hearing on Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea brings to light significant legal arguments regarding the appropriateness of his arrest and the conditions for his release. As the Court continues to evaluate the matter, the implications for both Kejriwal and the broader political landscape in Delhi remain profound.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail application today concerning the ongoing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case linked to the controversial liquor policy. The bench, which includes Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, will deliberate on the matter.
Previously, the Supreme Court had granted Kejriwal interim bail in a separate case brought by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), also related to the liquor policy. Despite this, Kejriwal’s detention has continued due to his ongoing custody in the CBI case, which falls under the Prevention of Corruption Act.