The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), opposing the bail plea by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, has stated that he should not be considered on par with his co-accused in the liquor policy case. In its response ahead of the Supreme Court’s hearing on the bail plea Today (Sept 5), the CBI also said that the Aam Admi Party (AAP) supremo’s treatment can be provided while he is in custody.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) strongly opposed the bail plea of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, arguing that he should not be treated on par with his co-accused in the controversial liquor policy case.
In its detailed response, which was submitted before the Supreme Court in preparation for the upcoming bail hearing Today (Sept 5), the CBI contended that Kejriwal’s health concerns, which he cited as grounds for his release, could be adequately addressed while he remains in custody.
The CBI maintained that there was no illegality in Kejriwal’s arrest and emphasized that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader was attempting to “politically sensationalise the case.” This assertion was made in the CBI’s official response.
The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, had previously reviewed the Chief Minister’s bail plea on August 14. However, the court declined to grant him interim bail at that time, pushing the hearing to September 5 and instructing the CBI to submit a counter affidavit before the proceedings.
Kejriwal’s legal troubles began with his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21, 2024, over alleged involvement in a money laundering case. This was followed by his arrest by the CBI on June 26 in connection with a corruption case. Despite these arrests, Kejriwal was granted bail by the Supreme Court in the ED case, which is linked to the liquor policy scam that has plagued his administration.
In its second submission to the Supreme Court last week, the CBI made it clear that Kejriwal cannot claim parity with his co-accused due to his significant role in the case. Among those who have already secured bail are former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, BRS leader K Kavitha, and former AAP communication in-charge Vijay Nair.
The CBI further emphasized in its submission that Kejriwal’s medical treatment can continue during his time in custody. Kejriwal had highlighted his health as a reason for requesting bail, but the CBI argued that such concerns were not compelling enough for his release, stating that
“bail granted to co-accused [of Kejriwal] has no bearing on his plea challenging the legality of his arrest.”
The central agency reinforced its position, saying, “bail granted to the co-accused has no bearing on his plea challenging the legality of his arrest.” The agency referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to grant bail to K Kavitha, which was based on an order passed for Sisodia on August 9.
Additionally, the CBI argued against the notion of medical bail for Kejriwal, stressing that
“On interim bail on medical grounds, treatment can be provided at the Tihar Jail Hospital or any of its referral hospitals as per Jail Rules and Manuals, which is already being done. No case has been made by Kejriwal to be released on medical bail, which ought to be granted only if the treatment is not possible in the jail.”
Recently, the Supreme Court granted bail to other figures embroiled in the liquor policy scam. On September 2, Vijay Nair, the former AAP communications in-charge, was granted bail in both the ED’s money-laundering case and the CBI’s corruption case. Before that, on August 27, K Kavitha was also granted bail by the Supreme Court, following the bail granted to Manish Sisodia on August 9.
At present, Arvind Kejriwal remains the sole prominent political figure still in custody regarding the liquor policy case, while his co-accused have all been granted bail.
PREVIOUSLY IN APEX COURT
On Friday, August 23, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal‘s petitions challenging his arrest and seeking bail in the case registered by the CBI over the alleged Delhi Liquor Policy scam.
The adjournment came after the CBI requested additional time to file a counter-affidavit in the matter.
The case was presented before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, who scheduled the next hearing for September 5.
At the beginning of the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the CBI, requested time to file a counter-affidavit in one of Kejriwal’s petitions. He mentioned that the CBI had already filed a counter-affidavit in the other petition.
In response, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that the CBI had intentionally filed the counter-affidavit late—specifically, at 8 PM the previous night—making it difficult for the bench to receive and review it in time.
The bench granted the CBI additional time to file its counter-affidavit and allowed Kejriwal the opportunity to file a rejoinder, if necessary. With these directions, the matter was postponed to September 5 for further hearing.
Kejriwal’s latest petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Vivek Jain, challenges the Delhi High Court’s August 5 order, which dismissed his plea against the CBI’s arrest. The High Court had provided Kejriwal the liberty to approach the trial court for bail, but his petition before the Supreme Court seeks to overturn that decision.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) yesterday night provided a detailed justification for the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. The CBI has accused the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief of playing a “pivotal role” in the creation and execution of the controversial policy, which has been at the center of the investigation.
In the agency’s view, Kejriwal’s arrest was critical for the “just conclusion” of the investigation. The CBI emphasized the necessity of this action, particularly in light of Kejriwal’s alleged lack of cooperation and the substantial evidence that reportedly links him to the case. According to the CBI, Kejriwal’s involvement was not only illegal but also a key element of a broader conspiracy involving significant financial irregularities and the misuse of public office.
In a detailed affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court on Thursday night, the CBI argued that Kejriwal’s actions were designed to politicize the case. The agency contended that-
“He (kejriwal) is attempting to politically sensationalise the case before this Hon’ble Court, despite repeated orders passed by various courts being prima facie satisfied of the commission of the offences.”
The CBI asserted that the arrest of Kejriwal was conducted lawfully, with all due procedures followed at every step. The agency pointed out that the Delhi High Court had already dismissed Kejriwal’s writ petition, stating that
“it cannot be said that the arrest of the petitioner (Kejriwal) was without any justifiable reasons or was illegal.”
Today, a bench led by Justice Surya Kant will hear Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest by the CBI.
Earlier, on August 14, the Supreme Court had denied Kejriwal immediate interim bail, even as it sought a response from the CBI.
The Delhi High Court, on August 5, had upheld Kejriwal’s arrest and remand by a trial court, concluding that his detention was neither illegal nor without justifiable grounds, as the CBI had presented “evidently enough evidence” to justify his arrest and remand.
Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court on August 12, shortly after the top court granted bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in a related case being investigated by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
In his petition, Kejriwal leaned heavily on the Sisodia verdict, wherein the Supreme Court had ruled that the former Deputy Chief Minister’s prolonged incarceration of 17 months, along with the lack of any imminent conclusion to his trial, infringed on his fundamental right to liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Kejriwal’s petition argued that the same grounds that justified Sisodia’s release should apply to him as well.
The crux of the CBI’s argument in its affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court centers on Kejriwal’s alleged involvement in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi excise policy 2021-22. This policy, which was later scrapped due to allegations of irregularities and corruption, led to a probe ordered by the Delhi Lieutenant Governor. Although Kejriwal did not hold an official ministerial portfolio, the CBI asserted that
“all critical decisions in the formulation of the new excise policy were taken at the behest of the petitioner, in connivance with the then Deputy Chief Minister and Minister of Excise, Manish Sisodia.”
The CBI further claimed that Kejriwal’s influence extended beyond the Delhi government, suggesting that his directives had a significant impact on decisions made across the AAP’s national operations. The agency accused Kejriwal of being central to the policy’s privatisation strategy, which involved tweaking and manipulating the policy to benefit certain entities.
The CBI specifically highlighted an instance where the profit margins for wholesalers were increased from 5% to 12%, a change that allegedly resulted in a substantial windfall for specific groups in exchange for illegal gratification of Rs 100 crores from the “South Group”—a consortium of liquor businesses from southern India.
The CBI also argued that Kejriwal cannot claim parity with other accused individuals, such as Sisodia, due to his key role in the criminal conspiracy. The agency emphasized that all decisions related to the Delhi government and the AAP were made solely under Kejriwal’s direction.
A significant part of the affidavit was dedicated to tracing the financial transactions linked to the excise policy. The CBI alleged that Rs 44.54 crore was funneled through hawala channels from Delhi to Goa to fund the AAP’s election campaign during the 2021-22 Goa Assembly elections.
These funds were reportedly received and distributed by individuals closely associated with the party, including Chanpreet Singh Rayat and Rajiv Ashok Mondkar, under the instructions of Vijay Nair, a key figure in AAP’s campaign strategy.
The affidavit also pointed to data retrieved from hard drives and mobile phones of the accused, which allegedly corroborated Kejriwal’s involvement. This evidence reportedly includes WhatsApp chats, screenshots, and contact details linking Kejriwal to the financial transactions and policy decisions under investigation. According to the CBI, these documents suggest a direct connection between Kejriwal and the illicit activities, further implicating him in the case.
The CBI also highlighted Kejriwal’s alleged non-cooperation during the investigation. The agency claimed that when Kejriwal was interrogated in Tihar Jail on June 25, 2024, he was “evasive and non-cooperative,” failing to provide satisfactory answers about his role in the Rs 100-crore bribe allegedly paid to the AAP by the ‘South Group.’
Despite being confronted with incriminating evidence, the CBI alleged that Kejriwal provided contradictory statements and concealed critical information, thereby impeding the investigation. This behavior, according to the CBI, justified Kejriwal’s arrest.
The affidavit further detailed that the decision to arrest Kejriwal was not made lightly and was only taken after his interrogation revealed his “pivotal role” in the conspiracy, along with his attempts to derail the investigation.
The CBI underscored that Kejriwal’s influence, both as the Delhi Chief Minister and as the AAP’s national convener, posed a significant risk to the integrity of the investigation, particularly with the potential for witness tampering and evidence destruction.
The CBI also sought to counter Kejriwal’s claim that his arrest was unwarranted, arguing that all procedural requirements under the law, including those under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, were meticulously followed. The agency stressed that the necessity for Kejriwal’s arrest was thoroughly documented in the case diary, which was reviewed by both the special court and the Delhi High Court.
Additionally, the CBI pointed out that Kejriwal’s arrest was sanctioned by the relevant authorities under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, following a comprehensive investigation that indicated his central role in the alleged crimes.
On Aug 14, the Supreme Court declined to grant interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a corruption case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) related to the alleged excise policy scam.
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, issued a notice to the CBI in response to the plea filed by Kejriwal challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision that upheld his arrest by the investigative agency.
“We are not granting any interim bail. We will issue notice,”
-the bench conveyed to Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who was representing Kejriwal.
The case has been scheduled for a hearing on August 23.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who appeared for Kejriwal, sought interim bail on health grounds as Justice Surya Kant directed the issuance of a notice.
“We have filed for interim bail due to health issues,”
-Singhvi said.
In response, Justice Kant replied,
“No interim bail.”
Singhvi argued,
“Just when the ED judgment was about to be delivered, the CBI arrested him. There are health issues involved, and we are pressing for interim bail.”
Justice Kant responded,
“No interim bail. We are issuing a notice”.
Previously, on August 5, the Delhi High Court had upheld the legality of the Chief Minister’s arrest, ruling that there was no malice in the actions of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The court noted that Kejriwal’s arrest was justified as it showed how he could potentially influence witnesses, who only felt secure enough to testify following his detention.
The excise policy in question was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi Lieutenant Governor ordered a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities and corruption in the formulation and execution of the policy.
According to both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), there were irregularities in the modifications made to the excise policy, and undue favors were allegedly extended to license holders.
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
