NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to deliver its verdict on 13 September, Friday, regarding Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's petitions challenging his arrest by the CBI and seeking interim bail in the Delhi excise policy case.
According to the cause list for 13 September, uploaded on the apex court's website, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who reserved their verdict on the pleas on 5 September, will pronounce the judgment on 13 September, Friday.
The Supreme Court had heard detailed arguments and submissions from Kejriwal, represented by his senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and from the CBI, represented by its advocate and Senior Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju.
It is pertinent to note that Kejriwal had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court on 12 July in the same case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). He was arrested by the CBI on 26 June in this case.
Terming Kejriwal's arrest as illegal and arbitrary, Singhvi argued that there should be safeguards for such actions. "There should be safeguards regarding the arrest of an accused person. You can't be trigger-happy... You can't just barge in to arrest without any basis," he said.
Singhvi also argued before the top court that the case was unusual and unprecedented. "This was perhaps the only case where I got two release orders under the stringent PMLA law, which has a bar of Section 45 from this court and another detailed order from the High Court. Then there was this insurance arrest in the predicate offence by the CBI. Please see the CBI FIR. I am not named. Then there is an ECIR by the ED. Then comes when I am called by the CBI for questioning for about 8 to 9 hours as a witness. On 24 March, I am arrested by the ED and not the CBI," he said.
"A man who is a constitutional functionary cannot be a flight risk at all. He is not a threat to society. Not a hardened criminal. The cooperation that is required is that he goes when called for trial," Singhvi argued, stating that Kejriwal satisfied the triple test formula.
In seeking bail for Kejriwal, Singhvi stated that four chargesheets in the CBI case and nine in the ED case had been filed. There are thousands of pages of documents, so evidence cannot be tampered with.
Opposing Singhvi's arguments, ASG Raju said that the accused, Kejriwal, had approached the Delhi High Court without going to the sessions court first. "This was my preliminary objection. On merits, the trial court could have seen it first. The High Court was made to see merits, which can only be in exceptional cases. In ordinary cases, the sessions court must be approached first. They came here and then approached the High Court, and then again came to the Supreme Court, which decided the matter."
The central probe agency contended that there was no violation of laws in arresting Kejriwal and claimed that the AAP chief was "attempting to politically sensationalise the case."
Raju also argued that just because the person was influential, it should not affect the proceedings. "Bail should not be granted to him," he said.
The CBI, in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, stated that Kejriwal might tamper with evidence if granted interim bail by the SC in the Delhi excise case. The CBI's reply responded to Kejriwal's pleas seeking quashing of his arrest and interim bail by the Central agency in the Delhi excise policy case.
"Being a prominent politician and Chief Minister of Delhi, the Petitioner (Arvind Kejriwal) is very influential, and he may influence the witnesses and evidence already exposed during the custodial interrogation and potential witnesses. He is also likely to tamper with the evidence to be further collected and may hamper the ongoing investigation," the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) stated in its affidavit to the SC.
The CBI further stated that despite various court orders prima facie satisfied of the commission of the offences, the petitioner was simply attempting to politically sensationalise the case. "Such unwarranted averments are liable to be discarded," the CBI said in its affidavit.
The Supreme Court had previously, on 14 August, refused to grant interim relief to Kejriwal and issued a notice to the CBI, seeking its detailed response by 23 August on his plea challenging his arrest by the agency in connection with the Delhi excise policy case, where he was being investigated by the CBI.
In one of the hearings, Kejriwal's counsel, senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, claimed that the CM's arrest by the CBI in June was an "insurance arrest," as it occurred when Kejriwal was on the verge of obtaining bail in the more stringent ED case under PMLA.
Singhvi pleaded with the apex court for interim bail for Kejriwal on health grounds, but the court declined.
The lawyer described the situation as unusual, citing three orders of release/bail under PMLA and the rejection of bail in a case not dealing with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). "There are three orders, one in May, one in June, and then a regular bail by the trial court in the ED case, which was later stayed. Then the CBI investigates and interrogates me one year ago," he said.
Narrating the case details, Singhvi noted that when the SC passed a detailed judgment on 12 July, the CBI's arrest was made, which he referred to as an "insurance arrest."
In his plea, Kejriwal had termed his "arrest by the CBI as illegal" and sought its quashing.
On 12 July, the apex court granted him interim bail in the ED's Delhi excise case, noting that Kejriwal had been incarcerated for more than 90 days and was an elected representative.
On 5 August, the Delhi High Court upheld Kejriwal's arrest by the CBI in connection with the alleged excise policy scam, a significant setback for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader's efforts to challenge the arrest.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, presiding over the case, dismissed Kejriwal’s plea contesting his arrest, stating that it was conducted with justifiable reason. The court also disposed of Kejriwal's bail plea, advising him to seek relief from the trial court.
The HC had reserved its verdict on 17 July regarding Kejriwal’s challenge to his arrest by the CBI and on 29 July regarding his bail plea after hearing arguments from both Kejriwal’s counsel and the central agency.
The HC judgment noted that Kejriwal, as Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi and convener of AAP, had significant influence. "There were links of this crime even in Punjab but the material witnesses were not forthcoming due to the influence exercised by the petitioner. It was only when he was arrested that witnesses from Punjab came forth to get their statements recorded, with two witnesses turning approver against the petitioner," the judgment read.
The court observed that the argument of the Special Public Prosecutor had merit. "The petitioner is not an ordinary citizen but a distinguished holder of the Magsaysay Award and convener of AAP. The control and influence he has on the witnesses are prima facie evident from the fact that witnesses only mustered the courage to testify after the petitioner’s arrest. This also establishes that the loop of evidence against the petitioner closed after his arrest. No malice can be gathered from the respondent’s acts," the judgment stated.
In dismissing the bail plea, the court noted that it would be beneficial for the petitioner to comprehensively determine his role in the alleged conspiracy before deciding on bail. “When the Bail Application was filed before this Court, the Charge-Sheet had not been filed. However, with the Charge-Sheet now filed before the learned Special Judge, it is beneficial for the petitioner to first approach the Court of Sessions Judge,” the order read.
Kejriwal was taken into CBI custody on 26 June while already in judicial custody at Tihar Jail related to a money laundering case filed by the ED. Initially arrested by the ED on 21 March, Kejriwal was granted bail by the trial court on 20 June in the money laundering case. However, the High Court stayed this order. On 12 July, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in the money laundering case.
