Today(on 17th July),The Delhi High Court has reserved its decision on Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI over alleged irregularities in the Delhi excise policy of 2021-22. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also reserved judgment on Kejriwal’s interim bail plea, with a main bail plea hearing set for July 29.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 17th July), The Delhi High Court has reserved its decision regarding the plea filed by Arvind Kejriwal, who is challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This arrest is linked to alleged irregularities in the now-defunct Delhi excise policy of 2021-22.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also reserved her verdict on Kejriwal’s interim bail plea. The court has scheduled a hearing for the main bail plea on July 29.
Kejriwal’s defense argued that his arrest by the CBI was an “insurance arrest.” Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, stated-
“The most notable aspect of this case is that it is, unfortunately, an insurance arrest. Clearly, the CBI neither wanted to, intended to, nor had sufficient grounds to arrest him. However, they feared he might be released in the other (ED) case, so they proceeded with the arrest.”
Singhvi highlighted that Kejriwal had secured three interim orders in his favor in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case related to the same excise policy matter.
“I have, in my favor, three release orders under very stringent provisions. First is the interim bail granted by the Supreme Court for election campaigning. The second is the recent interim bail, which provides indefinite unconditional relief. The third is the order from the trial court, which has been stayed by the High Court.”
– he submitted.
These orders, Singhvi argued, demonstrate that Kejriwal was entitled to be released and would have been if not for the “insurance arrest.”
On the other side, CBI Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) DP Singh refuted the “insurance arrest” allegation.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | This is a “hook or crook” Arrest: Arvind Kejriwal’s Lawyer Slams CBI Arrest
“The Supreme Court granted him interim bail on May 10 specifically for election campaigning. From my perspective, there was no restriction on arresting him. He was released on bail in the ED case, and I could have arrested him that day. However, that might have been seen as overreaching. As a responsible agency, we decided to wait.”
-Singh stated.
He emphasized that after Kejriwal received bail from the trial court in the ED case, the CBI did not arrest him.
“The Delhi High Court’s order to stay his bail in the ED case was set to be pronounced on June 25. We only arrested him after this order was issued. If it were an insurance arrest, I could have arrested him before the High Court’s decision, which would have raised eyebrows. However, I waited until the court imposed a complete stay on his bail. We cannot speculate on possible outcomes. Even if he had been granted interim bail, I could have still arrested him.”
-the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) argued.
The court was hearing two pleas filed by Kejriwal: one challenging his arrest and the other seeking bail.
Background of the Case
Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26 while already in judicial custody concerning a money laundering case investigated by the ED. He subsequently filed two petitions in the High Court, seeking bail and contesting his arrest by the CBI under the Excise Policy Case. Notably, the Supreme Court had already granted him bail in the ED case.
Kejriwal’s legal team argues that his arrest violates the statutory mandates prescribed under Sections 41 and 60A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
“In this case, despite the offense being punishable by up to 7 years, the investigating officer did not adhere to the requirements of Section 41A and 60A notices. Therefore, the petitioner’s arrest without complying with these legal mandates is illegal and without legal existence.”
-the plea challenging his arrest stated.
Kejriwal’s lawyers emphasized the questionable timing of the arrest, pointing out that the FIR was registered in August 2022, yet the arrest occurred nearly two years later. Moreover, Kejriwal was already in judicial custody, negating any risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing.
Senior Counsel Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, highlighted the timeline to underscore the delay and subsequent motives behind the arrest:
“The CBI filed an FIR on August 17, 2022, in which I was not named. On April 14, 2023, I was summoned under Section 160 of the CrPC as a witness, as stated in their records. I cooperated for 9 hours two days later. For eight months in 2023, they did not find it necessary to arrest or question me. Then, from March 21, 2024, after the Model Code of Conduct for Lok Sabha elections was enforced, the ED arrested me. From March to May 10, I remained in ED custody until the Supreme Court granted me bail for 3 weeks, believing I posed no risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing. After the interim bail ended, I surrendered. The Special Judge granted me bail in the ED case on June 20. It is evident that there was a shift in the CBI’s approach. I do not blame the CBI; these changes seem to be driven by external influences. They noticed I had a Supreme Court order in my favor and bail from the trial court. Subsequently, the CBI produced me before the trial court and arrested me.”
-Singhvi detailed.
Singhvi’s Critique on CBI’s Actions
Singhvi argued that the CBI’s arrest of Kejriwal was a strategic move to ensure he remains in jail, despite the Supreme Court granting him bail.
“This month, the Supreme Court released me. However, I find myself back at square one due to this ‘insurance arrest.’ The CBI seems determined to ensure, by any means necessary, and more by underhanded methods than straightforward ones, that I remain in jail.”
-Singhvi contended.
He asserted that the arrest was unnecessary and only intended to keep Kejriwal behind bars. “The dates of the case cry out for themselves. There was no need to arrest, no necessity to arrest and I would say no intention to arrest. But they have to do it because they want to keep me behind bars,” Singhvi said.
Furthermore, Singhvi argued that the arrest violated Section 41 of the CrPC and the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar judgment.
“Section 41A stipulates that I shall not be arrested without recorded reasons. Where is the provided reason, and where is the application of judicial consideration?”
-Singhvi demanded.
Criticism of Trial Court Conduct
Singhvi also criticized the trial court’s conduct, highlighting procedural lapses and lack of due process.
“They interrogated me for 3 hours in Tihar Jail, then filed an application for my arrest without addressing the questions of how, which, and why. I was not given a chance to be heard in these proceedings, denying me natural justice. The application to arrest me was filed on June 25, and the order was swiftly passed the same day. I received a copy of the application on July 6, thanks to their discretion. This raises serious concerns about the conduct of trial courts.”
– he argued.
Specifically, Singhvi pointed out that the trial judge allowed the application for arrest without giving notice to Kejriwal. “This judge allowed the application without notice to me. If this is allowed, what is the use of all the Supreme Court judgements etc? If a court even unwittingly says you go and arrest a person then that arrest is valid by itself. There are these clear judgements (of Arnesh Kumar), but they are wasted. Sometimes, to restate the obvious is important. Because people forget the obvious. Supreme Court said all this 10 years ago,” he said.
Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi raised serious concerns regarding the arrest and bail denial of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a recent court hearing. Singhvi argued that Kejriwal’s release could have been facilitated under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which the trial judge overlooked.
“How could the trial court judge have overlooked these provisions? The Supreme Court’s intentions, as outlined in the Arnesh Kumar judgment a decade ago, have been completely disregarded in practice.”
-Singhvi submitted.
New Evidence Questioned
Responding to the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) claim that new material necessitated Kejriwal’s arrest, Singhvi was skeptical.
“They claim new evidence has surfaced implicating me as an accused. They cite one piece of evidence: Magunta Srinivas Reddy, the approver. This evidence was known in January, yet I was arrested in June. The grounds they used to question me then became the basis for my arrest just hours later.”
-Singhvi said.
Kejriwal Meets Bail Criteria
Singhvi argued that Kejriwal meets the criteria for bail, emphasizing that he is not a flight risk, has no intention to tamper with evidence, and has been cooperative throughout the investigation.
“The bail test is straightforward with a triple criteria. Common sense is paramount here. Applying common sense, can I tamper with evidence? No. Regarding cooperation, I’m willing to meet monthly over coffee. As for flight risk, there is none.”
-he stated.
Previous Bail Orders Cited
Highlighting Kejriwal’s previous bail orders, Singhvi noted that the Chief Minister had received relief three times in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case.
“I have been granted relief three times—twice by the Supreme Court and once by the trial court. Unless your lordship finds something earth-shattering, what is wrong with me seeking bail now? Five of the principal accused in this case have already been granted bail, and nine have not been arrested.”
-Singhvi pointed out.
Prosecution’s Stand
Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh, representing the CBI, opposed Kejriwal’s bail plea. He argued that Kejriwal cannot dictate the terms of the investigation.
“They claim his interrogation lasted for 9 hours. We have audio and video recordings, where everything was typed, reviewed, and corrected with adjustments made accordingly. Meanwhile, a large crowd gathered outside the CBI office. Who should determine the course of the investigation?”
– Singh asked.
Rights and Privileges
Singh contended that the accused enjoys several privileges, while the investigative agency has limited rights.
“When it comes to the accused, they enjoy various special privileges and rights. In contrast, the investigation agency has far fewer privileges. My privilege lies in determining which witnesses and evidence are essential and organizing them accordingly. Documents that I rely on are categorized as relied documents, while those I do not rely on are listed for the court’s review, which the accused can inspect.”
-he submitted.
Singh emphasized that the CBI has the right to decide the timing and necessity of an arrest.
“I have the authority to decide when and under what circumstances an accused should be arrested. As the Chief Minister, his involvement was not initially clear as the incident occurred under the Excise Minister’s purview. Although certain matters were brought to our attention, we chose not to pursue charges against him due to his position as CM.”
-Singh stated.
Singh explained why the arrest occurred only in June, despite having statements earlier.
“He is a public servant, and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, permissions are required to investigate under Section 17. To clarify, I received Magunta Reddy’s statement in January, and the sanction came in April. The CBI has a procedural mechanism where an investigating officer (IO) cannot make decisions independently. It took us three months to gather all the necessary materials. It’s inaccurate to suggest we did nothing. All necessary actions were taken after April 23, not before. The delay in obtaining sanction should be understood in light of his position as the CM of Delhi.”
-Singh explained.
Singh also rebutted the argument that Kejriwal had been granted bail three times in the ED case.
“The initial bail order was specifically for election campaigning. Can they take credit for it? This demonstrates the robustness of our judicial system, granting bail even for electoral purposes. It underscores that we operate differently from countries like Pakistan, as they have argued.”
-Singh said.
The court acknowledged this but pointed out that the second and third bail orders were on merit.
“No, the second bail order by the trial court has been suspended by this court, accompanied by detailed reasons. The Supreme Court’s third bail order only addressed Section 19 of the PMLA.”
– Singh pointed out.
Singh emphasized that the parameters for arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and CrPC differ significantly.
“I (CBI) can make an arrest based on mere suspicion, whereas under Section 19 of the PMLA, the threshold for arrest is much higher—it requires evidence indicating guilt of the offense.”
– the SPP said.
The court questioned the delay in arresting Kejriwal despite having evidence since January.
“If I have sufficient cause for arrest, I can proceed with it. The Supreme Court has differentiated between the parameters under CrPC and PMLA, highlighting that they cannot be equated. CrPC allows for arrest during the investigation phase.”
-Singh replied.
Singh produced the Case Diary in court, asserting that it had been presented to the trial court as well. However, Kejriwal’s lawyers argued that the trial court’s order did not record the Case Diary.
“You (Kejriwal’s lawyers) were present during the arguments.”
-Singh countered.
He also disputed Kejriwal’s claim of cooperation with the investigation.
The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) made strong arguments regarding the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. The SPP argued that while this protection is indeed a fundamental right, it does not absolve the Chief Minister from answering straightforward questions about his involvement in crucial meetings and decisions.
“The protection under the Constitution prevents self-incrimination. However, if I ask him, ‘Were you in the meeting?’, he must answer yes or no. When we inquire, ‘Whose idea was it to privatize the liquor business?’, he responds, ‘It wasn’t my idea.’ He appears willing to assign blame to everyone except himself. Despite being the CM, when questioned about ‘Who appointed this person?’, he claims to have no knowledge. As the national convenor of AAP, he asserts ignorance.”
-the SPP contended.
The timing of Chief Minister Kejriwal’s arrest was a point of contention, with Singh explaining the process behind the decision.
“My decision-making process is not akin to that of the police. In the CBI, decisions are made by a chain of officers. The trial court considers timing but acknowledges there is sufficient material and justification for arrest, permitting custodial interrogation. Our actions have withstood judicial scrutiny.”
-Singh clarified.
Compliance with Section 41 CrPC
The SPP emphasized that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) followed proper procedures in compliance with Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
“We presented specific reasons, which persuaded the court to grant our application. We have successfully passed the test of judicial scrutiny and met all criteria. Upon arresting him, we provided comprehensive grounds for the arrest, which were contested during the remand proceedings.”
– the SPP stated.
Singh highlighted that there are two separate legal challenges before the court: one questioning the legality of the arrest and the other seeking bail.
“There are two aspects at play here: challenging the arrest through a writ for illegal detention, and applying for bail. I have elaborated on the reasons for his arrest, but it’s also crucial to address the bail application. If I can persuade this court that the arrest was lawful, only then can we proceed with the bail application. If the arrest is deemed unlawful, bail would be granted automatically.”
– Singh argued.
He further suggested that the bail plea should first be argued in the trial court, given its familiarity with the case details.
“The criteria for bail are distinct from those for arrest. Your Honor will need to delve into all the specifics. We are also in the midst of submitting the chargesheet. There are four chargesheets pending in the trial court, making it appropriate for the bail application to be initially argued there, as the trial court is well-versed with all the details. While this court has concurrent jurisdiction to consider bail, if the trial court first hears the bail plea, Your Honor can benefit from its decision.”
-Singh submitted.
The Court acknowledged the validity of the CBI counsel’s points, emphasizing the need to resolve the arrest legality first.
“First, you need to address this issue. The CBI is correct insofar as the trial court’s decision. If your arrest is deemed illegal, you will be released.”
– the single-judge remarked.
Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued against the necessity of the bail plea being heard only in the trial court.
“Your lordship is not obligated to follow his refusal to argue the bail. Each time, the CBI counsel suggests concurrent jurisdiction, but discourages it in this instance without providing reasons. Your honor can decide to grant interim bail now, with the main plea to be determined later.”
-Singhvi countered.
Singhvi also pointed out that Kejriwal had been granted bail in an Enforcement Directorate (ED) case, which was based on the same facts, under the more stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“I have been granted bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. While it may not technically be the identical offense, the underlying facts remain consistent. Please consider these points. Bail requires minimal arguments from both parties, especially given the existence of three previous orders.”
-Singhvi highlighted.
Singhvi argued that if the High Court finds the arrest legal, then it must also decide on the bail plea.
“The facts of the cases are identical. If Your Honor determines the arrest is illegal, there would be no need to proceed with the bail application. However, if the arrest is deemed legal, then Your Honor must decide on the bail.”
– he said.
However, Singh reiterated the importance of the trial court handling the bail due to its detailed knowledge of the case, including four chargesheets and witness influence issues.
“I am presenting the rationale for why the trial court should hear the bail application first. There are currently four chargesheets pending before the trial court. Furthermore, there have been allegations of witness tampering and disruption of the investigation.”
-Singh asserted.
In response to Singhvi’s criticism, Singh emphasized the trial court’s jurisdiction and familiarity with the case’s intricate details.
“I have referenced a judgment affirming that Your Lordships (High Court) hold concurrent jurisdiction. The argument stands that the chargesheet is currently before the trial court. Naturally, chargesheets are filed in trial courts and not in the High Court or Supreme Court. Do the esteemed judges of the Supreme Court, who rendered those judgments, not understand this basic fact?”
-Singhvi retorted.
