NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, reserved its judgment on the plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) concerning alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy of 2021-22. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also reserved her verdict on Kejriwal’s interim bail plea, with the main bail plea hearing set for July 29.
Kejriwal, represented by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, argued that his arrest by the CBI was an "insurance arrest," orchestrated to prevent his release amidst ongoing investigations by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding the same excise policy matter. Singhvi emphasised that Kejriwal’s arrest was unnecessary and politically motivated, pointing to a series of favorable court orders in related ED cases that had previously granted him bail.
"It is unfortunately an insurance arrest. I have effectively three release orders in my favor (in the ED case) under very stringent provisions. These orders show that the man is entitled to be released. He would have been released but for this insurance arrest," Singhvi argued.
Drawing parallels with political arrests in Pakistan, Singhvi underscored the broader implications of such actions on India's democratic fabric.
“We all read recently in papers, in a case Imran Khan was released but the day he comes out of jail, he is arrested in another case. Now they (Pakistan authorities) want to have a mega case against him. I don't want to see similar things happen in our country,” said Singhvi.
He insisted that Kejriwal's arrest lacked legal grounds and was contrary to the principles established by the Supreme Court.
In defense, Advocate DP Singh, representing the CBI, refuted the claims, asserting that labeling the arrest as "insurance" was unjustified. He emphasised that the CBI followed due process and acted within its jurisdiction, citing new evidence that emerged in the course of the investigation.
The controversy centers around the 2021-22 Delhi excise policy, which has seen Kejriwal and other prominent figures, including former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, embroiled in legal battles. The CBI's decision to arrest Kejriwal came after nearly two years of investigations and significant developments in the parallel ED probe.
Kejriwal’s counsel argued that the timeline of events and delay in his arrest suggested ulterior motives. Singhvi traced the sequence from the original CBI FIR in August 2022 to Kejriwal’s recent arrest, highlighting gaps and inconsistencies in the CBI's actions.
"On April 14, 2023, I was summoned under Section 160, CrPC as a witness. I appeared for nine hours, two days later. Eight months of 2023 go by and they don't see it fit to arrest me or examine me. Then, after the Model Code of Conduct for Lok Sabha elections comes into force, I am arrested by the ED. On June 20, the Special Judge granted me bail in the ED case. They see that I have a Supreme Court order in my favor and the trial court has granted me bail. They then produced me before the trial court and arrested me," Singhvi detailed.
The defense insisted that the CBI’s action was aimed at ensuring Kejriwal remained incarcerated despite previous bail orders, a tactic to sidestep judicial relief granted by higher courts. Singhvi criticised the trial court’s handling of the arrest application, arguing that it was processed without due notice to Kejriwal, violating principles of natural justice.
"The dates of the case cry out for themselves. There was no need to arrest, no necessity to arrest, and I would say no intention to arrest. But they have to do it because they want to keep me behind bars," Singhvi contended.
Countering these assertions, SPP DP Singh maintained that the CBI acted on substantial evidence and within legal bounds. He emphasised the agency's discretion in deciding the timing and necessity of arrests, especially in complex cases involving public servants.
"He is a public servant. Prevention of Corruption Act requires permissions to investigate under Section 17. To say that in January, I had the statement of Magunta Reddy; in April, I got the sanction. There is a mechanism at the CBI. An investigating officer alone cannot take a call. We took three months to collect all the material. Whatever I needed to do was only after April 23, not before it. To say why I took one year to get this sanction and he is the CM of Delhi," Singh explained.
The Court, acknowledging the gravity of the situation, emphasized the need for a thorough examination of both the legality of the arrest and the bail plea.