 (6).png)
Supreme Court of India can be seen in this collage along with Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal.
Credit: iStock and PTI Photos
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will pronounce its judgement on Friday on a plea by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the CBI and also seeking bail in the liquor policy 'scam' case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan had on September 5 reserved the judgment after hearing day-long arguments by Kejriwal's counsel senior advocate A M Singhvi and CBI's advocate Additional Solicitor General S V Raju.
Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26. He was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on July 12 in the money laundering case, investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.
During the hearing, his counsel Singhvi said that there was something remarkable and unprecedented.
"This is perhaps the only case where I got two release orders under stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act which has a bar of Section 45 from this court and another detailed order from HC. Then there was this insurance arrest in the predicate offence by CBI," he said.
He also pointed out Kejriwal was not named in the FIR lodged in 2022 and was arrested in June this year.
"Three court orders are in my favour. This is an insurance arrest, so that he can be kept in jail," he said.
The counsel also said the Delhi Chief Minister is not a flight risk as he is a constitutional authority, and there is no question of tampering with the evidence, as there are lakhs of documents many of which are digitised, so his client could not have influenced witnesses while being in judicial custody, and also five charge sheets have been filed in the matter.
In his support, he also cited the case of Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha bail orders.
Singhvi further said that Section 41A of the CrPC was introduced in 2010 to regulate arrests and it was intended to prevent arbitrary arrests and to ensure that law enforcement cannot simply barge in and arrest someone without a valid basis.
On behalf of the CBI, the ASG made preliminary objections to the plea, saying Kejriwal directly approached the High court without going to the sessions court.
"In ordinary cases sessions court has to be approached first. They came here and then they approached High Court and then again they came to SC," he said.
Raju also claimed Kejriwal used his influence to harass an excise licence holder from Punjab through his party led government.
He also contended any relief to Kejriwal would have demoralising effect on the High Court. However, the bench said he should not have made this submission. He, however, explained the CBI's charge sheet containing materials against him was not available before the High Court.
"There cannot be special treatment. There is no special person in law at all and “all other 'Aam Aadmis' (common man) have to go to sessions court," he said.
Reading out witness statements, Raju claimed that it indicated that Arvind Kejriwal was the "key conspirator" in the Delhi excise policy case.
The court said snakes and ladders observation in the judgment granting bail to another co-accused Manish Sisodia was not a charitable observation for the prosecution.
Raju also said there is a Punjab connection to the Delhi excise policy, and a distillery owner Mahadev was arm-twisted to pay bribes and he was pressured that his distilleries would face action and they would be blocked from restocking unless bribes were paid. Raju said Mahadev was told that the solution to his problem lies in Delhi and not in Punjab.
He claimed utilisation of bribe money in Goa election.
Raju also said that several individuals in Goa are also implicated in this matter and if Kejriwal were to come out on bail then those witnesses may become hostile.