Kumar Bahukhandi
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on two separate pleas filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, seeking bail and challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the alleged excise policy “scam.”
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan concluded the hearing of arguments from both sides and stated, “Thank you for the assistance. Judgment reserved.”
Additional solicitor general S.V. Raju represented the CBI, while senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of Kejriwal.
The apex court was hearing petitions challenging the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI and the denial of bail in the corruption case filed by the agency. The CBI had arrested the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief on June 26.
Earlier, on August 5, the Delhi High Court upheld the legality of the Chief Minister’s arrest, stating there was no malice in the CBI’s actions. The court noted that the agency demonstrated how Kejriwal could influence witnesses who only came forward after his arrest. The High Court had directed him to approach the trial court for regular bail.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, ASG S.V. Raju questioned the maintainability of Kejriwal’s pleas, arguing that he should have first sought bail from the trial court. “He has approached the Delhi High Court directly without going to the sessions court. Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), both courts have concurrent jurisdiction. My preliminary objection is that he must first go to the trial court,” Raju contended.
He further stated, “He seems to be an extraordinary person who requires a different approach. When all other ‘Aam Aadmis’ (common people) go to the trial court for bail, there cannot be special treatment for anyone.”
Raju also pointed out that the chargesheet against Kejriwal was filed on July 29, but he did not annex a copy of it to his application. He argued that the bail plea should be dismissed on grounds of concealment and suppression of facts.
Opposing the bail request, the ASG described Kejriwal as a highly influential person who might tamper with evidence if released.
In response, Singhvi countered, “It’s not a fair argument for the CBI to raise at this stage. You cannot consider sending me back to the trial court. Arguments were looked into during remand and affirmed against me. It is not fair to raise that argument now. At this stage, there is a huge delay involved since it has been heard on merits. I am giving the right of appeal. The CBI should be the last one to complain.”
Singhvi argued that the CBI did not arrest Kejriwal for nearly two years after the alleged excise policy scam surfaced and that an “insurance arrest” was made on June 26 after he secured bail in the “harsher” money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
He also highlighted that no notice was served to Kejriwal by the CBI before his arrest, and an ex-parte arrest order was passed by the trial court. “The CBI did not issue a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC as he was already in judicial custody,” he said.
Seeking bail, Singhvi emphasised that the Chief Minister is a constitutional functionary and not a flight risk. He noted that Kejriwal was not named in the initial CBI First Information Report (FIR).
The senior advocate also pointed out that the Supreme Court, while granting interim bail to Kejriwal in the money laundering case, had observed that he was not a threat to society. Additionally, other co-accused in the case — former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, AAP leader Vijay Nair, and BRS leader K. Kavitha — have been granted bail.
“What started in August 2021 has led to an arrest in March this year in the money laundering case,” he said, adding that both the Supreme Court and a trial court have already granted him bail in that matter.
On August 14, the Supreme Court had refused to grant interim bail to Kejriwal in the current case and had sought a response from the CBI on his pleas. As the proceedings concluded, when Raju expressed concern that granting bail might “demoralise” the Delhi High Court, the bench reassured, “Don’t say that. Whatever order we pass, we will ensure nothing like that happens.”
( Source : D C )
