Kejriwal bail hearing highlights: SC reserves order on Kejriwal’s pleas seeking interim bail, challenging CBI arrest

The hearing ends. 

Supreme Court reserves order in petitions filed by Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal seeking bail and quashing of arrest in the CBI case linked to the excise policy case. 

In his rejoinder submissions, Mr. Singhvi contends that the CBI overlooked the provision of Section 41 of the CrPC (arrest without warrant) when arresting Kejriwal. 

He further asserts that the CBI’s arrest did not satisfy other conditions as stipulated under Section 41(1) of the CrPC, such as the prevention of evidence tampering or ensuring Kejriwal’s presence in court—all of which were irrelevant given his custodial status. 

Taking exception to such a submission, Justice Bhuyan says that it is not for Mr. Raju to second-guess what the Supreme Court intends to do.

Justice Kant further remarks that whatever the Bench were to decide, it would not be to the detriment of the judicial institution. 

Mr. Raju contends that the Delhi CM has not included even one page of the chargesheet against him in his bail plea. This, according to him, constitutes concealment of facts and a fit case fo denial of bail. 

He further submits that if the Supreme Court were to grant bail to the AAP supremo then the Delhi High Court would be “demoralised”. 

“The High Court did not consider his (Kejriwal’s) case on merits and if the Supreme Court grants him bail on merits, it would be demoralising for the High Court”, he adds. 

“We did not want to arrest him (Kejriwal) when we sought to question him under Section 41A CrPC. But when we questioned him, we found material to suggest he may tamper or harm the investigation and he was non-cooperative”, Mr. Raju apprises the Bench. 

Addressing this contention, Justice Bhuyan says that Section 41A of the CrPC kicks in when there is no necessity to arrest an accused. 

“The job of a constitutional court is not to make a regressive interpretation”, the judge asserts. 

Mr. Raju further argues that there was no requirement to serve a prior notice to the Delhi CM for questioning, as he was already in custody. 

The investigating officer had appealed to the court and met with Mr. Kejriwal in jail – this according to Mr. Raju constitutes “deemed notice” under Section 41A of the CrPC. 

Mr. Raju states that the grounds for Mr. Kejriwal’s arrest can be clearly derived from the remand application, which detailed the necessity of his arrest, his role in the case, and the need for custodial interrogation. He emphasises that, following the Supreme Court’s Pankaj Bansal verdict, the grounds for arrest were provided in writing and not merely communicated verbally.

Also Read: Arrest, agencies, and criminal courts

Mr. Raju contends that since the Delhi CM is not claiming a violation of a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has no grounds to interfere. 

“In case of a violation of a statutory right, ​​Section 41 of CrPC​​ (arrest without a warrant) in this case, he has to agitate that and apply for statutory bail before a trial court”, he adds. 

Countering arguments that the Delhi CM’s arrest was illegal, ASG SV Raju asserts that he was arrested on the basis of permission given by the court. He points out that the concerned special court had found valid grounds for arrest. 

Mr. Raju further apprises the court that CBI’s June 25 application for permission to arrest the Delhi CM was not subsequently challenged. He claims that payments were made through hawala transactions to the Aam Aadmi Party for campaigning in the Goa Assembly elections, which he argues constituted “proceeds of crime”. 

The Bench has reconvened. The hearing of the Delhi CM’s bail plea has resumed. 

The Bench will reconvene at 2 pm post lunch. 

ASG Raju asks the Bench to decide his preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. He says that the sessions court should hear the bail plea first. 

The judges ask him to argue compositely and address all possible arguments. 

ASG Raju argues that cogent reason should have been given by Kejriwal for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction in a bail plea without a sessions court first hearing it. 

Mr. Raju questions if an accused can approach a sessions court for bail after a High Court denies him that relief on the pretext that it enjoys concurrent jurisdiction. 

To this, Justice Bhuyan says that an accused can seek bail multiple times as it is a matter of personal liberty.

Mr. Raju maintains that the only unique feature in the case is that the Delhi CM is a “privileged person”. 

Justice Bhuyan further points out that the Delhi HC took 7 days to deliver its judgment on Kejriwal’s bail plea. 

In response, ASG SV Raju says that the High Courts are heavily burdened and that the bail plea was heard on a holiday. “He (Kejriwal) is a privileged person”, he adds. 

ASG Raju cites judicial precedents that lean in favour of an accused coming up the tiers of appeal in bail jurisdiction so that the higher courts have the benefit of the application of mind of the trial court. 

Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan observe that the Delhi High Court should have been decisive when a preliminary objection such as this was raised by the CBI before it. 

Justice Bhuyan says the High Court should have sent the bail plea to the trial court “then and there”. 

Also Read: Delhi excise case: HC upholds Kejriwal’s arrest by CBI

Responding to this submission, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan says that the ‘snakes and ladders’ observation in the Manish Sisodia judgment is not a “charitable observation” for the prosecution. 

ASG S.V. Raju commences his arguments. 

He points out that unlike former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and BRS leader K Kavitha, the Delhi CM did not go through the grind of seeking bail in the trial court and then working his way upwards to the High Court and the Supreme Court. 

He also points out that the “snakes and ladder” observation of the top court was fit for Mr. Sisodia since he had travelled up from the trial court.

Concluding his arguments, Mr. Singhvi says that the Delhi CM has been incarcerated for a “sufficiently” long period and is not a hardened criminal. He further contends that when the CBI justifies the arrest by claiming non-cooperation, they are essentially accusing him of not confessing.

“He has a fundamental right against self-incrimination. When they say he is not conceding when confronted with evidence, they actually mean he is not declaring himself guilty. Adjectives like ‘I will derail the investigation’, ‘may influence witnesses’ are keeping me behind bars. How could I have influenced witnesses while in judicial custody?”, he adds. 

Mr. Singhvi refers to the Supreme Court’s judgment granting bail to Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s aide, Prem Prakash, in an illegal mining-related case registered by the ED. 

He points out that the top court had underscored that bail is the rule and jail is an exception even in money laundering cases.

Countering the CBI’s contention that Mr. Kejriwal should have sought bail in the trial court rather than approaching the Supreme Court, Mr. Singhvi refers to the top court verdict granting bail to Manish Sisodia. 

Referring to the verdict, the senior counsel points out that the Supreme Court had asserted that relegating an accused back to the trial court for bail is equivalent to playing a game of ‘snakes and ladders’.

The Delhi CM’s lawyer further contends that an accused should not be asked to run pillar to post for personal liberty.

Also Read: Manish Sisodia bail judgment highlights | SC affirms Sisodia’s ‘right to a speedy trial’

Excise policy case | SC grants bail to Manish Sisodia in both ED and CBI cases

Manish Sisodia bail judgment Highlights: SC grants former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia bail in both ED and CBI cases in the excise policy case. Orders him to be released on payment of ₹ 10 lakh in bail bonds

Singhvi points out that the ​“triple test for bail” in corruption cases​ is completely in the favour of the Delhi CM. 

He also highlights that most other co-accused such as former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, BRS leader K Kavitha, and former AAP communication in-charge Vijay Nair have already been granted bail by the top court.

The Delhi CM’s lawyer refers to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014). 

“Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the CrPC. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public”. [quote from the verdict] 

Singhvi questions the necessity of arresting Kejriwal, noting that he was already in custody at the time of the CBI’s arrest. He describes Kejriwal as the “most captive interrogatee,” emphasising that there was no risk of evidence tampering while he was in custody.

“There was no danger of him tampering with evidence as he was in custody. He was not loitering about, requiring the CBI to arrest him”, he adds. 

Mr. Singhvi points out that the CBI had not taken any action against the Delhi CM for two years before seeking to question Mr. Kejriwal under Section 41A of the CrPC (the provision is intended to prevent unnecessary arrests and protect individual rights). 

“By opting for Section 41A rather than Section 41 (which permits arrest without a warrant), the CBI signals that it does not intend to arrest Kejriwal”, Mr. Singhvi contends. 

Additionally, Singhvi points out that Mr. Kejriwal’s case is exceptional. He was granted bail three times in the ED case under the stringent bail provision of the PMLA. 

The Supreme Court granted him bail twice, and the trial court granted him bail once.

How is it that he is found fit to be released thrice under the stringent ​section 45 of the PMLA​, but not under the triple test in the CBI case, Mr. Singhvi asks.

Also Read: ​SC grants interim bail to Kejriwal till June 1; bars him from visiting CMO or signing any official files​

​

SC grants interim bail to Kejriwal till June 1; bars him from visiting CMO or signing any official files

The Bench refused the request of senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Mr. Kejriwal, that the interim bail be granted till June 5 - a day after the votes are counted on June 4.

Mr. Singhvi states that bail jurisprudence primarily aims to ensure the accused’s attendance. The three criteria for granting bail are that the accused should not be a flight risk, must appear when summoned for questioning, and there must be no risk of tampering with evidence. 

He argues that Mr. Kejriwal, as a constitutional functionary, is not a flight risk. 

“The concern about his appearance for questioning is moot. Furthermore, given the vast number of documents and electronic evidence already submitted, there is no possibility of tampering”, he adds. 

Mr. Singhvi highlights that the CBI did not arrest Kejriwal for two years after the ED first registered the case in August 2022. He is only arrested on June 25, while already in judicial custody in the ED case.

During the two-year period, the only significant development is a statement from co-accused Magunta Reddy made in January, the senior counsel asserts. 

Mr. Singhvi further highlights the only justification given by the CBI for the arrest is Mr. Kejriwal’s alleged non-cooperation. “There are Supreme Court judgments affirming that a person is not required to self-incriminate”, he adds. 

The Bench asks why Mr. Kejriwal was granted bail twice. 

In response, Mr. Singhvi clarifies that the first bail is given for 21 days to facilitate campaigning ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. He then surrenders on June 2, and the Special Court grants him bail on June 20. 

The Supreme Court then grants him interim bail again on July 12, referring to a larger Bench to address Mr. Kejriwal’s questions about the necessity and justification for his arrest under the PMLA.

Mr. Singhvi reminds the Bench that the ED registered the case in August 2022 but deemed it “needful and necessary” to arrest him nearly two years later, on March 21 –just a few days after the Model Code of Conduct for the General Elections 2024 came into effect.

The senior counsel further highlights that the Supreme Court had granted the Delhi CM interim bail on May 10 in the ED case, acknowledging that he posed no threat. The trial court then granted him statutory bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. 

On July 12, the Supreme Court extended interim bail once again, affirming that his rights to life and liberty were “sacrosanct.” Despite these rulings, Mr. Kejriwal was detained for over 90 days, making it effectively three instances of bail, Mr. Singhvi points out.

Also Read: The legal issues surrounding Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest | Explained

Asserting the uniqueness of the case, Mr. Singhvi highlights that this is the only case where bail was obtained twice under the stringent bail provision of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 

“This is perhaps the only case where I have two release orders under a more stringent Act, plus regular bail”, he adds. 

The senior counsel further clarifies that the petitions for bail and challenging the legality of arrest pertain only to the CBI case. 

Senior advocate D.r AM Singhvi is appearing for the AAP supremo. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju is representing the CBI. 

The hearing will begin shortly. 

The Supreme Court on July 12 granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in money laundering charges linked to the Delhi excise policy case, but asked him to take a call on whether he should now step down from office in light of the allegations arraigned against him.

“We are conscious that Arvind Kejriwal is an elected leader and the Chief Minister of Delhi, a post holding importance and influence. We have also referred to the allegations. While we do not give any direction, since we are doubtful whether the court can direct an elected leader to step down or not function as the Chief Minister or as a Minister, we leave it to Arvind Kejriwal to take a call,” a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta observed.

Read more here. 

Supreme Court grants interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal in money laundering charges linked to the Delhi excise policy case

Supreme Court grants interim bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in money laundering case, questions need for arrest.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Tuesday told a court here that Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had promised to pay ₹90 lakh to each of the 40 candidates of his party in the 2021 Goa Assembly election.

The amount, which was supposed to be used as campaigning fund by AAP nominees, was provided by the “South Group” in exchange for favours granted to it by the Delhi government through the now-scrapped excise policy for 2021-22, the agency also claimed.

Read more here. 

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has told the Supreme Court that it became necessary to arrest Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal due to his “evasive and non-cooperative” attitude to questions about his alleged role in the liquor policy case.

“It was necessary since he was to be confronted with the evidence on record, when it was necessary for the just conclusion of the investigation herein, more specifically since the petitioner was purposely derailing the investigation. The necessity to arrest also arose based on the materials on record and since the petitioner chose to remain evasive and non-cooperative during his examination on June 25,” the agency said in an affidavit.

Read more here. 

Taking cognisance of the fourth supplementary chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case linked to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, a court here on Tuesday (Septembe 3, 2024) summoned Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Durgesh Pathak and other accused on September 11.

The court of Special Judge Kaveri Baweja also extended till September 11 the judicial custody of the CM. It said there exists sufficient evidence against Mr. Kejriwal and other accused to proceed against them.

The CBI in its earlier chargesheet filed on July 29 had also named as accused Aurobindo Pharma director P. Sarath Chandra Reddy , who has turned an approver in a money laundering case lodged in this regard by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Read more here. 

Delhi excise policy case: Court summons Kejriwal after CBI’s supplementary chargesheet 

Delhi court summons Kejriwal and AAP MLA in CBI chargesheet related to 2021-22 excise policy corruption case.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday (August 14, 2024) argued in the Supreme Court that his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the excise policy case while he was on the “cusp of release” on money laundering charges was an “insurance arrest” designed to keep him behind bars.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan agreed to examine Mr. Kejriwal’s plea to quash the CBI, but refused to grant him interim bail for now.

Mr. Singhvi said Mr. Kejriwal had health issues and urged for interim bail.

“We are not granting any interim bail,” Justice Kant reacted.

Read more here. 

Arvind Kejriwal bail hearing: Supreme Court refuses Delhi CM’s interim bail for now, issues notice to CBI

Delhi excise policy case: Supreme Court denies interim relief to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in CBI case, sets bail hearing for August 23.

Initially arrested on money laundering charges by the ED in the excise policy case, Arvind Kejriwal is now in CBI’s custody on corruption charges. How does the CBI’s case differ from the ED’s? What legal remedies can the Delhi CM avail now?

Read The Hindu’s detailed explainer here. 

Why has CBI arrested Arvind Kejriwal and what happens next? | Explained

Arvind Kejriwal arrest news: Delhi Court sends Arvind Kejriwal to CBI custody for 3 days in corruption case, amid legal challenges. Read more details on his arrest and what happens next on The Hindu