BackgroundKejriwal had filed two separate petitions before the SC challenging the denial of bail and his arrest by the CBI. He had also contested the August 5 order of the Delhi High Court upholding his arrest.The top court reserved its verdict on September 5 after hearing detailed arguments from Kejriwal’s counsel, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and the CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju.Terming the Delhi CM’s arrest as “illegal” and “arbitrary,” Singhvi had argued that there should be safeguards for such actions. “There should be safeguards regarding the arrest of an accused person. You can’t be trigger-happy… You can’t just barge in to arrest without any basis,” he said.Singhvi had argued that the Delhi CM’s arrest by the CBI was an “insurance arrest,” as it occurred just when he was about to secure bail in a more stringent case filed by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He had also requested interim bail for Kejriwal on health grounds, but the Supreme Court declined.Opposing Singhvi’s argument, ASG Raju had objected to the accused approaching the Delhi HC without first going to the sessions court. “This was my preliminary objection. On merits, the trial court should have seen it first. The High Court was made to see merits, which can only be in exceptional cases. In ordinary cases, the sessions court has to be approached first,” he said.Raju also mentioned that the case should not be treated differently just because Kejriwal is influential. “It is the same for common people.”The CBI had argued that as a prominent politician and Chief Minister of Delhi, Kejriwal is highly influential and could potentially influence witnesses and evidence exposed to him during custodial interrogation, as well as potential witnesses.The agency added that he might tamper with evidence yet to be collected and hinder the ongoing investigation. It argued that there was no violation of laws in arresting Kejriwal and claimed that the AAP chief was “attempting to politically sensationalise the case.”Notably, the Delhi HC had dismissed Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest, stating that it was based on sufficient evidence collected and sanction obtained in April 2024.The court found his arrest to be legal and noted that there was no malice in the actions of the CBI, which demonstrated how Kejriwal could influence witnesses, who only came forward after his arrest.The HC observed that Kejriwal is not an ordinary individual and agreed with the special public prosecutor’s argument, advising him to seek regular bail from the trial court in the CBI case.It also noted that the crime’s connections extended to Punjab (where AAP is in power), but witnesses were initially unwilling to come forward due to Kejriwal’s influence. It was only after his arrest that they provided their statements, the Delhi HC observed.The CBI took Kejriwal into custody on June 26 while he was incarcerated in the money laundering case filed by the ED. He was arrested by the ED on March 21 and granted bail by the trial court on June 20. However, the trial court’s order was stayed by the Delhi HC. And on July 12, the SC granted him interim bail in the ED’s case.The excise policy was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi Lieutenant Governor ordered a CBI probe into alleged irregularities and corruption in its formulation and execution. The CBI and ED contend that there were irregularities in modifying the excise policy, with undue favours extended to license holders.(With additional inputs from Online Desk, Agencies)
Source link
