[Arvind Kejriwal Granted Bail By SC] “I hold a different opinion from Justice Kant. CBI cannot justify the arrest”: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court Today (Sept 13) allowed Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea in the corruption case related to the excise policy scam. However, Justice Surya Kant dismissed Kejriwal’s appeal challenging the legality of his arrest in the CBI case, while Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented on the issue.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the corruption case connected to the excise policy scam.

However, while Justice Surya Kant dismissed Kejriwal’s appeal regarding the legality of his arrest in the CBI case, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan offered a dissenting opinion on the matter.

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.”

He further emphasized-

“CM Kejriwal’s arrest does not suffer from illegality.”

Regarding the completion of the trial, Justice Kant observed,

“Completion of trial is unlikely to end in the immediate future.”

As a result, the court concluded,

“The criminal appeal challenging the legality of the arrest, we have declined. As regards bail, we have allowed the appeal. The High Court order is set aside. We direct the appellant to be released on bail, with two sureties of Rs. 10 lakh each.”

Moreover, the Court imposed conditions, stating,

“Appellant will not make any public comment on the merits of the case. Conditions imposed in the ED matter shall apply in this case also. He shall fully cooperate with the trial court.”

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a member of the bench, expressed a separate opinion on the necessity and timing of the arrest, stating,

“I have a separate opinion, while concurring with the view of Justice Kant that the appellant should be released. CBI’s appearance raises more questions than it answers. It appears only after the Trial Court granted regular bail to the appellant in the ED case that CBI became active and sought custody. It didn’t feel like a need to arrest for over 22 months. Such action raises serious question on arrest itself. A view may be taken….as far as grounds of arrest are concerned, these would not satisfy the necessity of arrest. The CBI can’t justify arrest and continue detention, citing evasive replies. Accused can’t be compelled to make an inculpatory statement.”

Justice Bhuyan further elaborated,

“I fail to understand the great urgency on part of the CBI to arrest the appellant when he was on the cusp of release in the ED case.”

He also emphasized that the CBI, being a premier investigative agency, must maintain the highest standards of fairness, remarking,

“It’s in the public interest that CBI must be seen to be above…efforts must be made to remove the perception that the investigation was not carried out fairly. Perception matters.”

Notably, the bench had reserved its order on September 5, in response to Kejriwal’s bail plea. Earlier, on August 14, the Court had declined to grant interim bail to Kejriwal in the excise policy corruption case. It also issued a notice to the CBI on the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Kejriwal against the Delhi High Court’s decision, which upheld his arrest by the investigative agency.

Prior to this, on August 5, the Delhi High Court had rejected Kejriwal’s interim bail request in the same case. The Court had reserved its judgment on July 29, and subsequently denied the request. Earlier, on July 17, the Court had reserved its decision on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest.

On July 2, the Court issued a notice to the CBI regarding Kejriwal’s challenge against his arrest, and a similar notice was issued again on July 5 after Kejriwal filed a bail plea in the same case.

Kejriwal was initially arrested by the CBI on June 26 while he was in judicial custody at Tihar Jail, as part of a separate case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) related to the excise policy scam.

Following his arrest, he was placed on a 3-day CBI remand, as ordered by a trial court on June 26. This was later extended to a 14-day judicial custody period, which was set to end on July 12.

However, on July 12, the Supreme Court, while observing that “mere interrogation does not allow arrest,” granted interim bail to Kejriwal in the ED case related to the alleged Excise Policy Scam.

Here are some of the Supreme 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