Vacation Judge Sunena Sharma of Rouse Avenue Courts issued the order after Kejriwal was brought to court following the completion of his three-day CBI custody.
![[Breaking] Excise Policy Case: Arvind Kejriwal Sent to Judicial Custody Till July 12 in CBI Cases](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/arvind-kejriwal-185304585-3x4-1.webp?resize=768%2C1024&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: Today (29th June): A Delhi court sent Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to judicial custody until July 12 in a corruption case related to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22, following the end of his three-day custody with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Saturday.
Vacation Judge Sunena Sharma of Rouse Avenue Courts issued the order after Kejriwal was brought to court following the completion of his three-day CBI custody.
The CBI argued that Kejriwal, as an influential politician, could tamper with evidence and influence witnesses if not kept in custody, though they stated his further custodial interrogation was unnecessary at this stage.
Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26 while already in judicial custody for a money laundering case initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), both cases linked to the alleged scam in the 2021-22 Delhi Excise Policy.
He had been granted bail by the trial court in the ED case on June 20, but the Delhi High Court stayed this order on June 21, confirming the stay on June 25. Consequently, he was arrested by the CBI on June 26 and held in custody until June 29.
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari contested the remand, arguing that the CBI should provide evidence justifying Kejriwal’s arrest on June 26. He questioned the legality of the remand without proper material evidence. However, the CBI’s counsel, Advocate DP Singh, argued against the maintainability of Kejriwal’s opposition to judicial custody.
Judge Sharma indicated that a bail application would be a more appropriate course of action for Kejriwal, noting that the material collected by the CBI during the investigation is not required to be disclosed to the accused. Chaudhari emphasized that the court should examine the CBI’s case diary to ensure accountability.
Chaudhari also mentioned that the CBI had committed to completing its investigation by July 3, suggesting this could be a potential ground for bail if not met. The court acknowledged this but maintained that it could only impact bail proceedings.
READ ALSO: [Breaking] Delhi Excise Policy Case: Arvind Kejriwal Moves Delhi Court for Regular Bail
Kejriwal withdrew his plea from the Supreme Court challenging the interim stay ordered by the Delhi High Court on his bail release in the money laundering case linked to the liquor policy scam.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, informed a vacation bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti that a new plea would be submitted to the apex court in light of the Delhi High Court’s recent decision to stay the trial court’s order granting bail to Kejriwal in the money laundering case.
The Delhi High Court, in its final verdict on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), stated that the trial court’s vacation bench did not thoroughly consider all the evidence and should provide the ED an equal opportunity to argue the bail.
The CBI was initially granted a three-day remand, arguing that Kejriwal’s custody was essential to confront him with evidence and documents. The agency also claimed that Kejriwal had implicated former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, attributing the idea of privatization to him.
Advocate DP Singh, representing the CBI, questioned the validity of Kejriwal’s application opposing judicial custody, stating,
“Let them argue on maintainability, I don’t think this is maintainable in view of Section 172, CrPC.”
Judge Sharma suggested that Kejriwal should instead file a bail application, explaining,
“You can file an application for bail before the concerned court after a day or two. You can’t just oppose judicial custody… There is no provision for the court to reject an application of the Investigating Officer for remand to judicial custody.”
Regarding the disclosure of investigation material, Judge Sharma noted,
“Though it is the court’s obligation to see what steps the Investigating Officer has taken during investigating the matter… it is between the court and the Investigating Officer. There is no need to disclose [the material] to the accused. No need to worry about that, the court will satisfy itself on the necessity of remand.”
The court emphasized,
“These materials can’t be disclosed to the accused. The court will satisfy itself on the necessity of remand based on the material presented. Once police custody expires, the court must remand the accused to judicial custody. The accused can apply for bail according to the procedure. There’s no provision for the court to reject the Investigating Officer’s application for judicial custody.”
In response, Chaudhari referenced a previous submission to the Supreme Court regarding the investigation’s expected conclusion by July 3, stating,
“I am praying, please ask the IO that whatever they are saying, your lordships may pin them down. So that tomorrow I argue this matter in any forum… I wish to point out something specifically. I leave the entire matter. Nobody can ask for copies of the case diary. I am here to assist your lordships fairly. Your lordships may ask them specifically, where is that material.”
The court commented on this, saying,
“Whatever statement they have given regarding the conclusion of the investigation by a certain date, even if those commitments are not adhered to, that will simply give you grounds to seek bail. You can’t say judicial custody can’t be given.”
During the hearing, Kejriwal personally addressed the court, asserting his and other AAP leaders’ innocence, including Sisodia’s. He accused the CBI of manipulating media narratives to falsely implicate him and denied blaming Sisodia.
Kejriwal is already in Tihar jail in connection with an alleged money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The Delhi liquor policy case centers on alleged irregularities in the 2021-22 excise policy, including modifications, undue favours to licensees, and the extension of L-1 licenses without prior approval. The CBI is investigating corruption charges, while the ED is probing the money laundering aspect.
Kejriwal, accused of being a key conspirator in the liquor policy scam, was first arrested by the ED on March 21, 2024. The ED claims that kickbacks from the policy were used to fund the Aam Aadmi Party’s election campaigns in Goa. The cases against Kejriwal originated from a complaint filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena.
