The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking interim bail and challenging his Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrest.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan while considering the bail plea on August 14, had denied him interim bail.
Kejriwal on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the CBI made an “insurance arrest in hurry” to prevent his release on bail in the alleged excise policy scam case.
He vehemently opposed in the Supreme Court the CBI’s argument that he should have approached the trial court first for bail in the corruption case linked to the alleged excise policy scam, asserting it would not be fair to send the matter back to the trial court at this stage.
Questioning the maintainability of Kejriwal’s pleas, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the central agency, submitted that even in the money laundering case in which he had challenged his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), he was sent back by the apex court to the trial court.
“He seems to be an extraordinary person who requires different approach. When all other Aam Aaadmis (common people) go to the trial court for bail, there cannot be a special treatment for anyone,” Raju told a a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Appearing for Kejriwal, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that his client was released on three different occasions in the money laundering case registered under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), where rigours for grant of bail are much higher.
“It’s not a fair argument for CBI to raise at this stage. You cannot consider sending me back there. Arguments were looked into during remand and affirmed against me. It is not fair to raise that argument now. At this stage, there is huge delay involved since it has been heard on merits. I am giving the right of appeal. CBI should be the last one to complain,” Singhvi said.
He referred to the 21-day interim release of the AAP supremo in May this year to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections, the interim bail granted subsequently by the top court on July 12, and the trial court order granting him regular bail, which was stayed later by the Delhi High Court on an “oral mention” made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Singhvi contended that the CBI did not arrest Kejriwal for two years since August 2022 but made an “insurance arrest in hurry” in anticipation of his release on bail in the money laundering case.
The CBI arrested Kejriwal for “his non-cooperation and evasive replies” but there were several apex court judgments that held that cooperation with the probe should not mean that the accused should incriminate himself and confess to the offences alleged, he said.
He said that Kejriwal, a constitutional functionary holding the position of Delhi Chief Minister, satisfied the triple test for grant of bail. “He is not a flight risk, he will turn up to answer the questions of the investigative agency, and cannot tamper with documents, running into lakhs of pages, and digital evidence after two years,” Singhvi submitted.
Opposing the arguments, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the CBI, said that Kejriwal should first approach the trial court for bail.
He argued that arrest is a part of investigation and ordinarily, an investigative officer will not require any permission from a court to make an arrest.
“But, in the present case, there was an order of the court granting the power (to arrest),” he said. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan will assemble post lunch to resume hearing Kejriwal’s pleas assailing CBI arrest and seeking bail.
Meanwhile, a Delhi court on Tuesday took cognisance of the charge sheet filed by the CBI against CM Kejriwal and other accused in the alleged liquor policy scam. Special Judge Kaveri Baweja issued a production warrant for Kejriwal on September 11, apart from extending his custody till the same date.
