[BREAKING] “Snakes & Ladders Not A Charitable Observation By This Court For Prosecution”: SC Reserves Order on Arvind Kejriwal’s Pleas For Bail, Against Arrest by CBI

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

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.

NEW DELHI: On Thursday (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.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the CBI, argued that the matter should have been initially brought before the trial court.

Raju remarked,

“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 further argued that bypassing the trial court could only be justified under exceptional circumstances, noting that Kejriwal’s status as Chief Minister was one such exceptional factor.

In response, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, contended that the issues raised in the current bail plea concerning the police’s obligation under Section 41A of the CrPC were previously argued and rejected during the trial court’s remand proceedings.

Singhvi questioned the fairness of sending Kejriwal back to the trial court to revisit the same arguments, 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 also referenced the Supreme Court’s previous judgment in the Sisodia case, highlighting that the Court had noted it would be unjust to send Sisodia back to the trial court for bail, describing such a scenario as playing a “game of snake and ladder.”

Singhvi pointed out, “(On) this sending back, the Supreme Court has now used a very felicitous phrase in the Sisodia judgment – snakes and ladders.”

ASG Raju interjected to clarify that Sisodia had approached the trial court once, unlike the current case.

He argued,

“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.”

Singhvi countered,

“They want the ladder to start all over again,” emphasizing that Kejriwal met the criteria for bail and that the ongoing trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future. He argued, “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.”

After a full day of arguments, the Court decided to reserve its judgment on the matter.

Background

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing two petitions from Kejriwal: one challenging the legality of his CBI arrest and the other seeking bail. The Delhi High Court had previously denied Kejriwal’s bail plea on August 5, directing him to approach the trial court instead. This led to Kejriwal filing an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26 while he was already in judicial custody related to a money laundering case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). This case concerns alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy of 2021-22, with accusations that Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, including Kejriwal, exploited policy loopholes for kickbacks from liquor lobbies, which were allegedly used to finance AAP’s election campaign in Goa.

Kejriwal had been first arrested by the ED on March 21, but was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court while it reviews broader issues related to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Despite this, he remains in custody due to his subsequent CBI arrest. Other AAP leaders and prominent figures were granted bail by the Supreme Court recently.

Hearing Today

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Arvind Kejriwal, laid out his arguments regarding the legal entanglements keeping the Delhi Chief Minister in prison.

Singhvi highlighted that this is an unusual case, wherein Kejriwal, despite securing bail under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), remains in jail due to a separate predicate offense lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Singhvi argued that Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI was nothing short of an “insurance arrest.”

He explained,

“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.” He termed the situation “something remarkable and unprecedented,” as Kejriwal had managed to obtain two release orders under the PMLA, a law known for its strict standards under Section 45, from both the Supreme Court and the High Court. “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,” Singhvi remarked.

Timeline of Arrests

Singhvi detailed the sequence of events leading to Kejriwal’s current predicament.

He emphasized that Kejriwal wasn’t initially named in the CBI’s First Information Report (FIR), and it was, in fact, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that arrested him first.

“Please see the CBI FIR. I am not named. Then there is ECIR by ED. Then comes when I was called by CBI for questioning for about 8 to 9 hours as a witness. In March 24, I am arrested by the ED and not CBI,” Singhvi stated.

Describing the arrest timeline further, Singhvi said,

“What started in August 2023 led to arrest in March 2024. In ED case, there are 2 significant release orders. In one, Supreme Court noted he is not a threat to the society, and it was an interim release. It was held not a threat in a ED case. Then the second order was a detailed order. It was a regular bail granted by trial court and was mentioned on oral mentioning by the High Court and is now pending adjudication by the High Court.”

“Insurance Arrest” by CBI

Singhvi explained how Kejriwal, after being granted bail in the ED case, was re-arrested by the CBI to prevent his release. He pointed out that the arrest by the CBI occurred between two significant judgments by the Supreme Court.

“Then comes the detailed order by the Supreme Court, Justice Khanna led bench. Supreme Court held that bail should be granted as right to life and liberty is sacrosanct and it directed that Kejriwal be released on interim bail and it is all on Section 45 PMLA cases.”

Singhvi emphasized the timing of Kejriwal’s CBI arrest, stating,

“Now before this, between May 10 Supreme Court judgment which granted him bail for elections and then the Supreme Court verdict of July 12 granting him interim bail, the CBI arrest took place. I go back to jail on June 2 (after bail for elections was over) and the judgment from Supreme Court is on July 12 but on June 25 this arrest takes place in CBI case even though no arrest ever happened in three years. This was a case of insurance arrest,”

Singhvi said.

Meeting Bail Conditions

Singhvi further stressed that Kejriwal satisfies all necessary conditions for bail, emphasizing his role as a constitutional functionary, making him unlikely to be a flight risk.

Moreover, Kejriwal’s cooperation with the investigations and the sheer volume of evidence collected further reduce the possibility of tampering.

“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,”

Singhvi said.

He reiterated that despite securing bail in the more stringent PMLA case, Kejriwal continues to languish in jail due to the CBI case.

“This person was found fit for release twice, once by Supreme Court too even under higher threshold of Section 45 of PMLA,”

Singhvi reminded the court.

Procedural Safeguards Ignored

The defense also argued that procedural safeguards under Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were not adhered to during Kejriwal’s arrest. Section 41 governs arrests without a warrant, while Section 41A mandates notice of appearance before a police officer in cases where arrest isn’t immediately necessary.

“No notice to me or court. This is ex parte between court and them. No application served, they filed application saying we will give the documents later. Insurance arrest surely. I am the most captive interrogatee you can find, ever. Just for insurance you arrested! No substantial material was demonstrated before special judge to justify my arrest, grounds were vague,”

Singhvi remarked.

“Snakes and Ladders” Game Cites in SC Decision

Singhvi compared sending Kejriwal back to the trial court to play a “snakes and ladders” game, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Sisodia case. “(On) this sending back, the Supreme Court has now used a very felicitous phrase in the Sisodia judgment – snakes and ladders,” Singhvi stated.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for the CBI, interjected to challenge Singhvi’s arguments.

Raju questioned “whether Kejriwal had approached the High Court too early, bypassing the trial court. He approached the High court without going to the sessions court. This is my preliminary objection,”

Raju argued.

Raju further contested the claim of exceptional circumstances, asserting that being a Chief Minister does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance for bypassing the trial court.

“All other aam admis have to go to sessions court,”

he pointed out.

“Main Conspirator” Allegation

On the merits of the case, ASG Raju presented the prosecution’s claim that Kejriwal is the “main conspirator” in the case.

He also denied any violation of Kejriwal’s fundamental rights in the arrest, dismissing claims under Section 41A of CrPC.

Raju argued, “When a fundamental right is not violated, then Article 32 plea does not lie.”

In response to Singhvi’s assertion that chargesheets were filed late to delay bail, the ASG defended the filing procedures and emphasized that the chargesheet clearly outlined Kejriwal’s involvement.

“Without annexing chargesheet can he ask for bail? Today, the chargesheet has been filed can he ask for bail without it. He cannot. That is crucial ground. Chargesheet demonstrates in detail his role,”

Raju said.

Court’s Observations

The Bench questioned the High Court’s delay in passing its order, with Justice Bhuyan asking,

“High Court took 7 days to write a 3 para order?” .

Raju responded that the High Court was burdened with cases and had to work on holidays to accommodate the case

Singhvi quickly countered, suggesting that delaying chargesheet filings could lead to indefinite detention.

“If this submission is correct then prosecution will decide when to file chargesheet and even after so decide when cognisance should be taken and bail is denied. This is first time in the last 75 years such a submission is made,”

Singhvi argued.

Conclusion

The hearing concluded with ASG Raju warning that granting bail would “demoralise the High Court,” a statement that drew strong disapproval from the Bench.

“Do not say all that… Do not say that.. it cannot be submission of any lawyer,” Justice Bhuyan interjected.

In closing, Singhvi reiterated his contention that keeping Kejriwal in prison through technicalities amounts to unjust prolonged incarceration, asserting that Kejriwal should be released on bail pending the resolution of the case.

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