SC reserves verdict on Kejriwal's plea challenging arrest by CBI

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on a plea by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the CBI and also for bail in the liquor policy scam case.

After a day long hearing, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan wrapped up the proceedings in which arguments on behalf of Kejriwal were advanced by senior advocate A M Singhvi and CBI by Additional Solicitor General S V Raju.

In his contention, Singhvi said that there was something remarkable and unprecedented. "This is perhaps the only case where I got two release orders under stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act which has a bar of Section 45 from this court and another detailed order from HC. Then there was this insurance arrest in the predicate offence by CBI," he said.

He also pointed out Kejriwal was not named in the FIR lodged in 2022 and was arrested in June this year.

"Three court orders are in my favour. This is an insurance arrest, so that he can be kept in jail," he said.

He said that the Delhi Chief Minister is not a flight right as he is a constitutional authority, and there is no question of tampering with the evidence, as there are lakhs of documents many of which are digitized, how could his client have influenced witnesses while being in judicial custody, and also five charge sheets have been filed in the matter.

He cited the case of Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha bail orders.

Singhvi further said that Section 41A of the CrPC was introduced in 2010 to regulate arrests and it was intended to prevent arbitrary arrests and to ensure that law enforcement cannot simply barge in and arrest someone without a valid basis.

Per contra, Raju made preliminary objections to the plea, saying Kejriwal directly approached the High court without going to the sessions court.

"This is my preliminary objection. On merits trial court could have seen it first. The High Court was made to see merits and it can only be in exceptional cases. In ordinary cases sessions court has to be approached first. They came here and then they approached high court and then again they came to SC," he said.

Raju also claimed Kejriwal used his influence to harass an excise licence holder from Punjab through his party led government.

He also contended any relief to Kejriwal would have demoralising effect on the High Court. However, the bench said he should not have made this submission. He, however, explained the CBI's charge sheet containing materials against him was not available before the High Court.

There cannot be special treatment regarding bail for a special person, he said, adding that there is no special person in law at all and “all other 'Aam Aadmis' (common man) have to go to sessions court”. Reading out witness statements, Raju claimed that it indicated that Arvind Kejriwal was the "key conspirator" in the Delhi excise policy case.

The court said snakes and ladders observation in the judgment granting bail to another co-accused Manish Sisodia not a charitable observation for the prosecution.

Raju also said there is a Punjab connection to the Delhi excise policy, and a distillery owner Mahadev was arm-twisted to pay bribes and he was pressured that his distilleries would face action and they would be blocked from restocking unless bribes were paid. Raju said Mahadev was told that the solution to his problem lies in Delhi and not in Punjab.

He claimed utilisation of bribe money in Goa election, Raju said that several individuals in Goa are also implicated in this matter and if Kejriwal were to come out on bail then those witnesses may become hostile.

Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26. He was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on July 12 in the case, investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.

In an affidavit, the CBI justified before Supreme Court its decision to arrest Kejriwal, claiming all the critical decisions in the formulation of the new excise policy were taken at his behest, in connivance with then Deputy Chief Minister and Excise Minister Manish Sisodia, for illegal gratification of Rs 100 Cr.

On August 5, 2024, the Delhi High Court rejected a plea by Kejriwal to declare his arrest by the CBI as illegal, saying it cannot be said that his formal arrest was without any justiciable reasons.

The court had then found no malice on the part of CBI in arresting him on June 26, by upholding validity of the action by the central investigating agency and custodial remand by the special court.

The court noted initially, after registration of FIR on August 17, 2022, the petitioner was examined on April 16, 2023 for 9-10 hours since at that stage he was identified only as a person, who was acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

The CBI had explained that it is only after sufficient material was collected against the petitioner over a period of one and a half years, that it sought the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, which was granted on April 23, 2024.

The High Court also noted the petitioner is not an ordinary person but it is the Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi and the convenor of Aam Aadmi Party, which has its Government in Punjab.