The Supreme Court of India Today (Sept 13) emphasized that High Courts should not send an accused back to the Trial Court for bail after having already heard the matter in detail. Apex Court’s ruling came after it found that the Delhi High Court, despite an extensive hearing, relegated the appellant, Arvind Kejriwal, to the Trial Court to seek bail.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India highlighted that High Courts should not send an accused back to the Trial Court for bail after having already extensively heard the case.
Arvind Kejriwal, the appellant and a prominent political figure, had challenged his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and sought regular bail.
The verdict was given by a bench consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The Supreme Court’s decision came after it noticed that despite a thorough hearing, the Delhi High Court had directed Kejriwal to approach the Trial Court for bail.
Arvind Kejriwal, the three-time Chief Minister of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the National Convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party, faced allegations related to corruption and irregularities in the 2021-2022 Excise Policy.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered an FIR (No. RC0032022A0053) on August 17, 2022, citing charges under Sections 120B and 477A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Although Kejriwal’s name was not initially included in the FIR, later investigations allegedly pointed towards his involvement.
On March 21, 2024, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested Kejriwal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Supreme Court granted him interim bail on May 10, 2024, which expired on June 1, 2024.
After surrendering to the jail authorities, Kejriwal was arrested again by the CBI on June 26, 2024, for his alleged involvement in the Excise Policy scandal.
Legal Issues Involved
This case raised several pivotal legal questions:
- Legality of the Arrest: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kejriwal’s legal counsel, argued that the arrest was illegal and violated procedural safeguards. Singhvi emphasized non-compliance with Sections 41(1) and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He claimed that the CBI had failed to provide justifiable reasons for the arrest, thus violating Section 41(2) of the CrPC, which Singhvi argued had been misapplied as the case involved cognizable offenses, not non-cognizable ones.
- Grant of Bail: Singhvi further contended that Kejriwal deserved to be granted bail, given that the Supreme Court had already granted him interim and regular bail in a related Enforcement Directorate (ED) case, where more stringent conditions were imposed. He also pointed out that his client met the “triple test” for bail, which included:
- No prior criminal antecedents,
- No flight risk,
- No potential to tamper with evidence.
- Relegation to Trial Court: The High Court’s decision to ask Kejriwal to seek bail from the Trial Court after extensively hearing the case was also challenged. Singhvi argued that this approach would lead to undue delays and effectively deny justice to his client.
Supreme Court’s Decision
In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court made it clear that once a case has been heard in detail, it is inappropriate for the High Court to direct the accused to seek bail from the Trial Court.
The Court emphasized that the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 of the CrPC to decide on bail matters, and sending the accused back to the Trial Court after a lengthy hearing is unnecessary and unfair.
The Court specifically remarked,
“The High Court’s jurisdiction is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously, particularly when the matter has been heard at length. Relegating the accused back to the Trial Court is akin to taking the applicant back to square one, which results in unnecessary delays and travesty of justice.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court reviewed the procedural compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC, which deals with issuing notices before an arrest. The Court concluded that since Kejriwal was already in judicial custody, the requirement for notice under this section was not applicable. Additionally, the bench noted that the CBI had followed the necessary procedures under the CrPC for arresting someone already in judicial custody, making the arrest legally sound.
The Supreme Court also pointed out that the High Court’s references to Section 41(2) of the CrPC were typographical errors, as both parties agreed that this section, pertaining to non-cognizable offenses, did not apply to this case.
Observations and Quotes from the Judgment
The Supreme Court made several key observations in its judgment:
- “The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety, and burden on the public treasury. A developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process.”
- “The prolonged incarceration of an accused person, pending trial, amounts to an unjust deprivation of personal liberty. Courts should lean towards granting bail unless the release is likely to shatter societal aspirations or derail the trial.”
- “High Courts should exercise their jurisdiction judiciously and avoid relegating an accused to the Trial Court for bail after an extensive hearing. Such actions lead to delays and constitute a denial of justice.”
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of prompt and fair judicial processes, especially concerning bail matters.
It stresses that High Courts should fully utilize their jurisdiction to decide on bail matters after extensive hearings and avoid sending cases back to Trial Courts, which only leads to further delays and potential injustices.
Here Are Some of the Apex Court’s Key Quotes
- “Perception also matters and CBI must dispel the notion of being a caged parrot and must show it is an uncaged parrot. CBI should be like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion.”
- “No impediment in arresting person already in custody. We have noted that CBI in their applciation recorded reasons as to why they deemed necessary. There is no violation of Section 41A (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,” said Justice Surya Kant.
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, however, noted, “CBI did not feel the need to arrest him (Mr Kejriwal) even though he was interrogated in March 2023 and it was only after his ED arrest was stayed that CBI became active and sought custody of Mr Kejriwal, and thus felt no need of arrest for over 22 months. Such action by the CBI raises serious question on the timing of the arrest and such an arrest by CBI was only to frustrate the bail granted in ED case.”
- “Submission of additional solicitor general cannot be accepted that appellant has to first approach trial court for grant of bail. Process of trial should not end up becoming a punishment. Belated arrest by CBI is not justified.”
- “Regarding building a public narrative of a case… Arvind Kejriwal shall not make any public comments about this case and be present for all hearings before trial court unless exempted.”
CASE TITLE:
Arvind Kejriwal v Central Bureau of Investigation.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arvind Kejriwal
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Delhi Excise Policy Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
