NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its verdict on the bail application by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi excise policy-linked corruption case filed by the CBI. During the hearing, the courtroom witnessed intense arguments with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) contending that Kejriwal played a central role in the alleged scam.
During the Monday proceedings, Kejriwal’s counsel led by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, N Hariharan, and Ramesh Gupta, argued that the Chief Minister’s arrest by the CBI was an ‘afterthought’, aimed at countering the interim bail Kejriwal was granted by the Supreme Court in a related money laundering case.
He claimed there was no direct evidence against the AAP chief and the central agency apprehended him based on presumptions and hypothesis.
Singhvi emphasised that the excise policy, signed off by multiple high-ranking officials including the erstwhile Delhi Lieutenant Governor (L-G) Anil Baijal, was the result of extensive deliberations involving numerous expert committees and officials.
Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh, representing CBI, maintained that Kejriwal’s involvement in the scam was substantiated by direct evidence.
He pointed out that the trial court had already deemed Kejriwal’s arrest legal, underscoring the thoroughness of the ongoing investigation.
Singh further argued that releasing Kejriwal on bail could jeopardise the investigation, given his influence and the potential for witness tampering.
The courtroom exchange highlighted the complexities surrounding the case, with Singhvi countering that the policy’s development involved extensive bureaucratic participation, suggesting that implicating Kejriwal alone was unjust. “15 others also signed it. The L-G signed it... By his (procecution’s) logic, they should make him an accused,” Singhvi argued.
Calling the CBI’s rhetoric ‘poetic’, Singhvi said the word ‘sutradhar’ (origin) has been used to refer to Kejriwal. “The first time the excise policy went into making was in 2020. At least 50 bureaucrats were involved,” Singhvi said.
Singh’s rebuttal focused on the necessity of Kejriwal’s arrest to advance the investigation, citing significant evidence obtained post-arrest. “The investigation could not have been concluded without his arrest. Within a month we filed the chargesheet... After his arrest, we got evidence. His own party workers came out to answer,” said CBI’s counsel, adding that a final chargesheet has been filed in the trial court.
After hearing both sides, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reserved the order.
