In The CBI Case Involving The Delhi Excise Policy, The Supreme Court Granted Arvind Kejriwal Bail.

Last Updated on September 13, 2024 by Arti Kumari

Nevertheless, the Court decided that Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI was lawful and compliant with all applicable procedural laws, even though it granted bail.

In a case brought by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) about corruption charges related to the since-canceled Delhi excise policy for 2021–2022, the Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister (CM) Arvind Kejriwal.

A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued the directive after determining that it was unlikely that the case’s trial would end very soon.

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader’s release was ordered by the court after it determined that he passed the triple standard for bail.

Kejriwal was granted bail, the statement reading, “We are not relegating the appellant to the trial court.”

But the Court also mandated that Kejriwal refrain from discussing the issue in public. It explained that this requirement is necessary to counter a current “tendency of building a self-serving narrative” on public venues.

Unless he is excused from making a personal appearance, he has been asked to attend all trial court proceedings.

Judge Ujjal Bhuyan made a significant ruling against the CBI, stating that Kejriwal’s arrest by the agency following her successful bail application in the ED case was merely an attempt to thwart Kejriwal’s release from prison.

“Despite the fact that he had been questioned in March 2023, the CBI did not see the need to arrest him. In fact, they did not find the need to arrest him for more than 22 months till after Kejriwal’s ED arrest was stayed. Judge Bhuyan stated, “This action by the CBI raises serious questions about the timing of the arrest and such an arrest was only made to frustrate the bail granted in the ED case.”

He emphasized that the CBI had to be above any accusations and not operate like a parrot in a cage.

Perception is important in an operational democracy run by the rule of law. An investigating agency ought to be above board, just like Caesar’s wife was. This Court had already chastised the CBI and likened it to a parrot in a cage. CBI needs to refute the idea that it is a parrot in a cage. Judge Bhuyan argued that the public’s perception ought to be that of an unrestrained parrot.

According to Justice Kant, a civilized society requires a developed jurisprudence on bail, and it is not justifiable to imprison an accused person for an extended period of time while their case is pending.

The First Information Report (FIR) was submitted in August 2022, and four chargesheets have been issued, the court further said. It further stated that 17 defendants have been listed and the trial court has taken cognizance.

Though the judges unanimously granted bail, they couldn’t agree on whether Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI was lawful.

Before the highest court, Kejriwal had submitted two distinct pleas: one contested the validity of the CBI’s arrest of him, and the other asked for bail.

Both judges granted permission for the latter.

Regarding the latter, Justice Kant determined that it was lawful and compliant with pertinent procedural rules.

“A person who is already being held for another matter may be arrested for investigative purposes without any problems. The CBI has stated in their plea that there was a court order and that this is why the arrest was required. The Code of Criminal Procedure’s Section 41(A)(3) was not broken, the Court declared.

It further stated that once a magistrate issues an order, the investigative agency is released from providing any justification for an arrest, as was the case in this instance.

Any police officer may arrest without an order from a magistrate or without a warrant,” states Section 41(1) in its opening words. It implies that a police officer is released from his legal duty to form an opinion in cases where a magistrate has issued an order. As a result, considering the previous ruling from the Trial Court, it is evident that the terms and circumstances outlined in Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC would no longer be applicable in this particular situation,” the order stated.

Justice Kant concluded that there was no procedural error and that Kejriwal’s arrest was lawful.

Regarding the necessity and timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, Justice Bhuyan disagreed.

“I hold a different opinion regarding the necessity and timing of arrest. Therefore, while agreeing with Justice Surya Kant’s conclusion that the appellant should be released on bond, I feel it is important to provide a separate opinion regarding the need and timing of the appellant’s arrest,” Justice Bhuyan stated in his order.

According to him, there was no need for the arrest and harassing behavior should not be the reason for using the arrest power.

“It cannot be that the accused is just responding questions to assist the prosecution; this would imply cooperation on his behalf. Additionally, the accused’s right to quiet does not imply evasion, and nothing negative can be inferred from his silence. Keeping Kejriwal behind bars while he is out on bail in the ED case would be a mockery of justice. It was decided in the Mohd Zubair case that the use of the arrest power must be exercised with caution. According to the ruling in the Arnab Goswami case, targeted harassment is not permitted under the law,” Justice Bhuyan stated in a separate order.

It was said that the CBI had detained Kejriwal in this instance in order to thwart the bail granted in the ED case.

Judge Bhuyan pointed out that Kejriwal was not listed as an accused by the CBI even on the day of his arrest on June 26, 2024; instead, Kejriwal was only named as an accused in the most recent chargesheet the CBI submitted on July 29, 2024.

Despite their divergent views, the two judges came to the same decision in the end, dismissing the plea contesting the validity of the arrest and granting the bail request.

On August 5, the Delhi High Court denied Kejriwal’s request to be released from custody and instructed him to request bail from a trial court. Kejriwal immediately appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court following it.

While Kejriwal was in judicial custody on June 26, the CBI arrested him in relation to a money laundering case that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was looking into in relation to the same scam.

Alleged irregularities in the formulation of the now-cancelled Delhi excise policy for 2021–22 are the basis for the complaint against Kejriwal.

Allegations in the case state that a number of AAP leaders, including Kejriwal, participated in the deliberate establishment of excise policy loopholes in exchange for bribes from alcohol lobbyists. According to the investigating agencies, the proceeds from this exercise were utilized to finance the AAP’s Goa election campaign.

Both the ED and the CBI are looking into the case.

The ED initially detained Kejriwal in this case on March 21.

Later on, in the ED case, the Supreme Court granted him temporary release.

He was in judicial custody in relation to the ED case on June 26 when the CBI formally arrested him in the case, therefore he remained in jail despite this temporary bail judgment.

Afterwards, he filed a straight bail motion with the High Court, defying the custom of accused parties who always go via the trial court first.

The High Court told him to go to the trial court first and declined to give him bail. Additionally, the request to deem his arrest unlawful was denied.

During the September 5 hearing, the CBI contended that rather than going straight to the Delhi High Court, Kejriwal ought to have applied for bail through the trial court first.

Additionally, the CBI claimed that if Kejriwal is granted bail, he will probably tamper with the evidence and hinder their current investigation into the case.

Additionally, the central agency stated that granting bail to Kejriwal would demoralize the Delhi High Court.

In the same case, the Supreme Court granted bail to several well-known figures, including AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh. The top court recently granted bail in the case to Bharat Rashtra Samithi leaders K Kavitha and AAP communications chief Vijay Nair.

Case Title : Arvind Kejriwal v Central Bureau of Investigation.