Image credit : Hindustan Times
On 13th September 2024, The Supreme Court ordered Arvind Kejriwal to release on regular bail in a case registered by The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in relation to now-scrapped excise policy
Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan assented on the bail of Arvind Kejriwal but adjourned the case due to the point of the legality of his arrest by the Central Investigating Agency.
The adoption of the two conditions from the July 20 order
Arvind Kejriwal was obstructed byJustice Kant to visit the Chief Minister Office and The Delhi Secretariat or sign official files unless it was required and was necessary for obtaining clearance or approval of the Lieutenant Governor of India. These two conditions were adopted from the July 20 order of the apex court granting The Chief Minister bail in relation to a money laundering case which was investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
Since the two bail conditions were a part of the July 20 order in a different case heard by a Coordinate bench of the apex court, Justice Bhuyan abstained from probing into them. Though he had some “serious reservations” about the two bail conditions.
The judgement of the case that followed
The judgement was based on the petitions submitted by Arvind Kejriwal and he was represented by Advocate A.M. Singhvi, seeking bail, and the suppression of his arrest by the CBI on June 26.
Though Justice Bhuyan said that CBI arrest was not interfered as it didn’t go through any of the “procedural infinity”, but still he chose to draft an opinion by questioning the time and necessity of the arrest.
Image credit : Timeline Delhi
Justice Bhuyan diligently questioned the hassle behind the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal by the CBI, 22 months after the submission of the First Information Report (FIR) in the case. The Justice squashed the excuse that Mr. Kejriwal’s arrest was necessary as he delivered an “evasive” response to his interrogators. He reasoned by saying that just because an accused didn’t respond in a way his interrogators wanted him to, he cannot be labelled as non- cooperative.
He highlighted that the power of arrest must be used cautiously and it must not be an object for harassment. Justice Bhuyan urged the CBI to be above board in its actions like “Caesar’s wife” and give the public the perception of an “uncaged parrot”.
Justice Bhuyan stated that the timing of the CBI arrest was a suspect as the Chief Minister was in a middle of a ‘cusp of release’ from jail followed by a court order which granted him bail in a money- laundering case. The arrest time initiated the view that it was meant to ‘frustrate’ Mr. Kejriwal’s release, he observed.
Mr. Singhvi has termed the CBI arrest an “insurance arrest”
Over the point of bail, both the judges agreed the continued confinement of Mr. Kejriwal violated his right to personal liberty. The CBI lodged its FIR in August 2022. As yet, four chargesheets, arraigning 224 witnesses and 17 additional accused, were filed in the trial court. The documentary evidence was extensive.
Image credit: Mint
Justice Bhuyan found no point in keeping Mr. Kejriwal halted in the CBI case when he had already been granted bail multiple times under the rigorous provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The apex court refrained from exiling the bail plea to the trial court. The Bench dismissed the CBI’s apprehension that Mr. Kejriwal would be entangled in the tampering of evidence and influencing the witnesses.
Mr. Kejriwal was ordered by the court to pay bail bonds of ₹10 Lakhs with two sureties and restricted him from making any public comments about the CBI case to avoid unwanted controversies, especially on social media networks.
