The court described it as a “travesty of justice” to keep Mr. Kejriwal in custody without the prospect of a trial, especially since he had already been granted bail in the ED case, where he faced charges under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act, just as it had for Mr. Sisodia.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today(13th Sept) granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, citing that his “prolonged incarceration constitutes an unjust deprivation of liberty.“
This decision follows his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation in June related to the alleged liquor excise policy case. Kejriwal, who had already secured bail in a separate case filed by the Enforcement Directorate, can now leave jail after nearly six months without a trial.
However, he is restricted from visiting his office or the Delhi Secretariat, and cannot sign files without the consent of Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena.
On Friday morning, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surya Kant delivered separate verdicts on Kejriwal’s two pleas but concurred on the essential issue – his release.
Mr. Kejriwal also challenged his arrest by the CBI, which occurred shortly after a Delhi trial court granted him bail in the ED case. His lawyers criticized the CBI’s action as an “insurance arrest.”
The judges had differing opinions on this issue.
Justice Kant asserted that there was no issue with arresting someone already in custody (as Kejriwal had been in ED custody before the CBI’s arrest). In contrast, Justice Bhuyan argued that the CBI’s involvement seemed to have started only after the trial court granted bail in the ED case.
Justice Kant emphasized that a well-developed jurisprudence on bail is essential for a progressive society, as prolonged incarceration of accused individuals during a trial cannot be justified.
The court noted that the First Information Report (FIR) was filed in August 2022, with four chargesheets submitted and the trial court having taken cognizance. Seventeen accused are set to be examined.
While the judges unanimously granted bail, they differed on the legality of Kejriwal’s CBI arrest.
Kejriwal had submitted two separate pleas to the Supreme Court:
- Firstly, the one challenging the legality of his arrest and the other seeking bail.
- The latter was granted by both judges. However, Justice Kant found the arrest to be valid and in accordance with procedural laws.
The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, outlined the key questions that were framed based on the arguments:
“Whether there was illegality in the arrest; Whether the appellant should be granted regular bail; and Whether the filing of a chargesheet constitutes a sufficient change in circumstance to refer the matter to the trial court.”
Justice Kant, while delivering the verdict in open court, remarked,
“No impediment in arresting person already in custody. We have noted that CBI in their application recorded reasons as to why they deemed it necessary. There is no violation of S.41A(iii). We do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant that CBI didn’t comply with S.41A CrPC.”
Justice Bhuyan expressed confusion over the CBI’s urgent move to arrest the appellant just as he was on the verge of release in the ED case.
He criticized the argument made by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, stating,
“The appellant should first approach the trial court… this argument cannot be accepted.”
Justice Bhuyan also reinforced the legal principle that
“bail is the rule, jail the exception,” which was applied in the cases of Mr. Sisodia and Ms. Kavitha. He emphasized that “further detention by the CBI under the same predicate offense is untenable,” asserting that “bail is the rule and jail an exception” and highlighting the presumption of innocence.
Despite these differing views on the arrest, the judges agreed on the bail decision. They noted that the completion of the trial was unlikely to happen soon and thus ruled in Kejriwal’s favor, following a precedent set in three other high-profile bail cases related to the liquor policy issue: former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, AAP MP Sanjay Singh, and Telangana politician K Kavitha. All three were released on similar grounds.
The court described it as a “travesty of justice” to keep Mr. Kejriwal in custody without the prospect of a trial, especially since he had already been granted bail in the ED case, where he faced charges under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act, just as it had for Mr. Sisodia.
Delhi Liquor Policy Case Explained
The Delhi liquor excise policy case involves allegations that Mr. Kejriwal and the AAP received ₹100 crore in kickbacks, including substantial payments from a ‘South group’ led by Ms. Kavitha, for the allocation of wholesale licenses. The ED and CBI allege that this money was used to finance election campaigns, including the 2022 Goa Assembly election. They also believe Mr. Kejriwal played a central role in drafting and approving the controversial policy of November 2021, which was later withdrawn.
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Read Today’s Report on Arvind Kejriwal
