Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the High Court requested the central agency’s response to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener’s plea challenging his arrest in the corruption case. The judge instructed the CBI to respond within seven days and set July 17 as the next hearing date.
![[Excise Policy Case] Delhi HC Seeks CBI Response on Arvind Kejriwal's Bail Plea](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/image-3-4.png?resize=820%2C539&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: Today (5th July): The Delhi High Court will hear the bail plea of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a corruption case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) related to the excise policy ‘scam’.
READ ALSO: ED Opposes Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail, Calls Court Order ‘Illegal, Perverse’
Previously, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the High Court requested the central agency’s response to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener’s plea challenging his arrest in the corruption case. The judge instructed the CBI to respond within seven days and set July 17 as the next hearing date.
Kejriwal was questioned by the CBI on June 25 in Tihar jail, where he was in judicial custody for the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money laundering case linked to the excise policy. He was then formally arrested in the corruption case the next day and presented before Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court, where the agency sought a five-day custody to confront him with evidence.
Special Judge Amitabh Rawat sent Kejriwal to three-day CBI custody, stating his arrest was “not illegal” but warned the agency against being “overzealous.”
The Court noted that Kejriwal approached the High Court directly for bail without first seeking relief from the trial court.
The High Court stated,
“Petitioner has moved this court directly without going to the trial court. This contention will be considered at a later stage. CBI to file a reply in a week.”
Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26 while he was in judicial custody for a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). He was granted bail by the trial court in the ED case on June 20, but this was stayed by the Delhi High Court on June 25. Subsequently, the CBI arrested him on June 26 and remanded him to custody until June 29.
On June 29, he was sent to judicial custody until July 12 after the CBI did not seek an extension of his custody. Kejriwal approached the High Court directly for bail in the CBI case on July 3.
The Delhi Chief Minister’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI and the trial court’s order remanding him to the agency’s custody is also pending before the High Court.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the High Court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter. Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, also representing Kejriwal, claimed that Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires giving notice to the accused before arresting without a warrant, had been violated.
Chaudhari stated,
“Our principal argument is that Section 41A has been violated. The trial court said that 41A has not been violated, which is why we believe going to the trial court would be a futile exercise.”
Singhvi further argued that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), concerning the twin conditions for granting bail, does not apply in the CBI case.
He said,
“The Supreme Court has settled the law. There is no Section 45 PMLA involved here. My lord may hear it today itself. It is a bail plea. What is the point of all these judgments if my friend (CBI lawyer) comes and says I should go to the trial court?”
The Delhi Chief Minister’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI and the trial court order remanding him to the agency’s custody is also pending before the High Court.
On June 29, the trial court extended Kejriwal’s judicial custody until July 12.
Advocate DP Singh, representing the CBI, questioned the Chief Minister’s decision to approach the High Court directly for bail, stating,
“The first court for bail should have been the trial court. For propriety’s sake… this will become a norm in all cases.”
The High Court emphasized that there must be a strong ground to approach it directly for bail, despite its concurrent jurisdiction to hear bail petitions.
The judge remarked,
“In how many matters has the Supreme Court said go to trial court on propriety? Law is clear, we have concurrent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has said don’t clog the higher courts when the remedy is available to you. There must be some reason why you come to High Court directly,” before proceeding to issue a notice to the CBI.
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 allege that irregularities were made in modifying the excise policy, with undue favours given to licence holders. Additionally, Kejriwal is accused of diverting profits from the policy into AAP’s funds for the Goa Assembly election.
