Today(10th Sept),The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Arvind Kejriwal’s bail pleas and his challenge to his CBI arrest in the alleged liquor policy scam. Kejriwal has filed two petitions: one contesting the denial of bail and the other opposing his CBI arrest in the corruption case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its judgment today (September 10th) on the bail plea and arrest challenge filed by Delhi Chief Minister and AAP convenor, Arvind Kejriwal, in connection with the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam.
On 5th Sept, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment regarding the bail plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the Delhi excise policy case, which is under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan engaged in an extensive hearing of arguments from both Kejriwal’s legal team and the CBI before deciding to reserve its verdict.
During the hearing, a notable point of contention was whether the bail plea should have initially been considered by the trial court before reaching the Supreme Court.
Traditionally, bail applications are first addressed by the trial court, but Kejriwal had directly approached the Delhi High Court for relief. The High Court’s rejection of his plea led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Kejriwal’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, filed two petitions. The first challenges his arrest by the CBI, while the second seeks bail after his earlier petition was rejected by the Delhi High Court on August 5. The High Court had directed Kejriwal to approach the trial court for bail, a decision that his defense argued was unnecessary, given the legal grounds already covered.
Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26, shortly after his interim bail in a related money laundering case, which was being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The controversy stems from allegations that AAP leaders, including Kejriwal, exploited the liquor policy to receive kickbacks from the liquor lobby. The funds allegedly financed the party’s election campaign in Goa.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju, representing the CBI, raised a fundamental procedural objection, asserting that the case should have initially been brought before the trial court rather than being fast-tracked to the Delhi High Court.
Raju stated-
“He approached the High Court without going to the sessions court. This is my preliminary objection. On merits, the trial court could have seen it first. The High Court was made to see merits and it can only be in exceptional cases. In ordinary cases, the sessions court has to be approached first.”
Raju argued that Kejriwal’s status as Chief Minister, while significant, did not qualify as an “exceptional circumstance” justifying bypassing the trial court.
In response, Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, challenged this procedural stance, stating-
“Is it a fair plea to say (go to trial court bail)? Had it not been argued on merits including on Section 41 and Section 41A fully? Before the trial court also, it was argued during remand. You cannot consider sending me back there. Arguments were looked into during remand and affirmed against me. It is not fair to raise that argument now by then at this stage, huge delay involved since it has been heard on merits. Clear error on the face of it. I will not use the word perverse but serious error.”
Singhvi further emphasized that the legal requirements under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had already been considered by the lower courts. This section mandates that police officers issue a notice of appearance in cases where an arrest is not immediately necessary. The defense stressed that forcing Kejriwal back to the trial court would be a time-consuming exercise akin to a “game of snakes and ladders,” referencing a similar Supreme Court ruling in a previous case involving AAP leader Manish Sisodia.
Singhvi pointed out-
“(On) this sending back, the Supreme Court has now used a very felicitous phrase in the Sisodia judgment – snakes and ladders.”
He argued that Kejriwal met the criteria for bail and that the trial process was likely to drag on for years, making prolonged incarceration unjustifiable.
“Multiple chargesheets filed. Prolonged incarceration cannot be there, is the triple test satisfied? Yes, it is. In Manish Sisodia, the Court held that in this particular case of excise policy, the trial is impossible to finish.”
“Insurance Arrest” Allegations
Singhvi accused the CBI of executing an “insurance arrest” to ensure that Kejriwal remained in custody, even after securing bail in the ED’s money laundering case. He described the situation as “remarkable and unprecedented,”
adding-
“This is an insurance arrest by CBI to keep Kejriwal in prison when it was clear that he would secure bail in the money laundering case.”
Singhvi elaborated-
“This is perhaps the only case where I got two release orders under PMLA stringent law which has a bar of Section 45 from this court and another detailed order from High Court. Then there was this insurance arrest in the predicate offence by CBI.”
Raju, representing the CBI, countered Singhvi’s arguments by asserting that Kejriwal is the “main conspirator” in the liquor policy scam. He emphasized that Kejriwal had bypassed the procedural hierarchy by approaching the High Court directly without first seeking bail from the sessions court. Raju stated-
“Sisodia went to the trial court once. Here, how many times has he? It is not fair to look at one para like that without facts. My lords cannot be the first instance. There is a hierarchy.”
Raju also contested the notion that Kejriwal’s fundamental rights had been violated, dismissing claims made under Section 41A of CrPC.
“When a fundamental right is not violated, then Article 32 plea does not lie,”
-he argued.
Throughout the proceedings, the Bench raised concerns about procedural delays in both the High Court’s decision-making and the timing of chargesheet filings. Justice Bhuyan remarked-
“High Court took 7 days to write a 3 para order?”
Singhvi, in his concluding arguments, warned that any delays in filing chargesheets could lead to indefinite detention, undermining the principles of justice. He emphasized that Kejriwal satisfied all bail conditions, adding-
“Twenty-four months have passed and four chargesheets in CBI case and nine in ED case. Thirteen in total. Thousands of pages of documents. So no evidence can be tampered with.”
Background and Timeline of Events
Kejriwal’s legal issues started with a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities in Delhi’s 2021-22 liquor policy, which was later withdrawn. The ED then filed charges against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). His first arrest took place in March when the ED detained him, but he was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court.
