The Delhi High Court has reserved verdict in Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the agency in the corruption case related to the excise policy scam.

The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has also reserved verdict in Kejriwal's inteirm bail plea in the corruption case.

"Arguments heard. Order reserved in the Writ. In bail matter, order reserved on interim bail. The regular bail is listed for hearing on July 29 at 3 pm," the Court ordered.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Kejriwal expressed gratitude to the Bench, for hearing the case on a court holiday. It is to be noted that today (July 17) is a court holiday, on account of Muharram.

The Senior Counsel submitted, "The most striking feature of this case is that, we are facing an "insurance arrest". Why I am calling it so, because CBI had no evidence, nothing to arrest me. I have 3 release orders in my favour. These orders show that the man is entitled to be released. He would have been released but for this insurance arrest." He argued that the agency feared that Kejriwal will be released in ED case.

Highlighting the contentious nature of the arrest, Singhvi asserted that Kejriwal, as the AAP national convener, should be granted bail as he is "not a terrorist" and his detention was not in accordance with legal mandates. Singhvi contended, "I was already sitting in jail. You (ED) can interrogate me, no need to arrest me. This is an additional arrest, an "Insurance Arrest", because this man could walk free."

Referring to the production warrant, Singhvi argued that the traditional law is that it can be for enquiry or trial and not for investigation. Further referring to the arrest memo, he argued, "What is this ground of arrest? It is the same thing, unless you confess, we will arrest you."

Singhvi argued, "In any case, the simple test is triple test. I always say, common sense is paramount. Can I go and touch the evidence? Can I do non-cooperation? Can I be a flight-risk? There is a threat to the society for what?? The answer is No." While concluding he submitted, "Lastly, for any reason, your lordship envisages, any delay. I am pressing for interim release."

On the contrary, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) DP Singh, representing the CBI, opposed Kejriwal's pleas challenging his arrest and seeking bail, dismissing the characterization of the arrest as "unjustified" and defending the investigative actions taken.

On the argument that Kejriwal was arrested after so long, Singh argued, "He is the Chief Minister, his role was not apparent because the excise policy was under excise minister. There are 17 accused persons, very convinently, it has been told that 5 have been granted bail and 9 have not even been arrested, I would like to tell there are 3 persons who are in custody in this case."

"No observation till date, thay CBI has been overzealous or has done something that violated any statute. Till date, there is no act that the CBI has done, which can be called unreaching," the SPP argued. He also argued, "The CrPC permits arrest for the purpose of investigation. Kejriwal’s arrest was necessary cause his custodial interrogation had become necessary."

The SPP also submitted that Kejriwal should first approach the trial court seeking bail. "The bench should have the advantage of the reasons by the trial court. That court is already on arguments on the charge and the trial court should hear the bail first. I will not argue on the bail," he submitted.

Taking note of the detailed submission of both parties, the Court reserved orders in the Writ Petition challenging arrest by CBI. It also reserved order in the interim bail. However, the Court scheduled the regular bail plea for hearing on July 29 at 3pm.

Pertinently, on July 2, the Court had issued notice to the CBI in Kejriwal's plea challenging arrest. Thereafter, Kejriwal also moved a bail plea; in the same case, a notice was issued to the CBI on July 5.

Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26 from Tihar Jail, where he was already in judicial custody till July 3 in a PMLA case related to an excise policy scam. Initially, the AAP National convenor was remanded 3-day CBI remand by a Trial Court order dated June 26. Thereafter, Kejriwal had been initially sent to 14-day judicial custody, i.e. till July 12.
In a related news, on July 12, while observing that mere interrogation does not allow arrest, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal in ED case related to the allged Excise Policy Scam.

Cause Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation [W.P. (CRL)-1939/2024, CRL.M.A. 18890/2024, & CRL.M.A. 18891/2024]

Justice Neena Bansal KrishnaDelhi High CourtArvind KejriwalAam Aaadmi PartyCentral Bureau of InvestigationDelhi Excise Policy ScamPrevention of Corruption Act

Sukriti Mishra