Supreme Court Reserves Order In Arvind Kejriwal's Bail Plea In CBI's Delhi Excise Policy Case

The Supreme Court today reserved order in Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's bail plea in the corruption case related to the excise policy scam.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, "Orders reserved."

During the hearing today, Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Vikram Choudhary, N. Hariharan, and Shadan Farast appeared for Kejriwal.

Singhvi submitted that there is something remarkable in this case. "The insurance arrest by CBI happened after 2 years," Singhvi submitted.

The Bench asked Singhvi, "What is the offense alleged?"

To this, Singhvi responded, "Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, in which punishment is 7 years of imprisonment."

Referring to the ED case order, Singhvi quoted, "He is not a threat in the ED case; today we are in a triple test case only." After taking the Court through all the previous orders in favour of Kejriwal in the ED case, Singhvi argued that an insurance arrest was made by CBI on June 26. "This is one of the few cases, I know, where I have got bail on a more difficult case (ED)," Singhvi contended.

Singhvi submitted, "Your Lordships are in the jurisdiction of the triple test. The triple test is a common sense test...the ultimate object of the bail jurisprudence is to secure your attendance...There is no flight risk in this case; a man who is a constitutional functionary cannot be a flight risk.... After 2 years, when lakhs of documents have been collected (by CBI), tampering of evidence or witnesses cannot be the case. Above all, Section 45 PMLA is found fit for release three times, but a triple test has not been found fit for release."

Singhvi further informed the Court that till last week, all other accused persons, including Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, Vijay Nair, etc., have been released on bail. Referring to the Manish Sisodia judgment, Singhvi argued, "Hundreds of witnesses. Not even the remotest possibility of completion of the trial in a short span. Same thing applies to my case. He was deputy CM; I am CM. He was said to have deep roots; the same applies to me; the court held no possibility of tampering."

While concluding arguments, Singhvi submitted, "In the end, it comes to one point, that this is a remarkable case, where there are multiple orders of release: but bail is not given in a triple test case. He is not a threat to society. Not a hardened criminal. The cooperation that is required is that he goes when called for trial." Further, referring to the arrest memo, Singhvi argued, "They (the CBI) say he's concealing true facts. What will he say? That he's guilty?... They say he may influence witnesses...if these adjectives (try and may) can keep a man behind bars, what's the use of Section 41? These are not grounds of arrest."

Opposing the bail plea, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, along with Special Public Prosecutors Zoheb Hossain and DP Singh, appeared for CBI.

The ASG contended, "The fact of the matter is that he has approached the Delhi High Court, under Section 439, both have concurrent jurisdiction. My preliminary objection is that he must first go to trial court. The first court to examine on merits is trial court. The High Court will have the benefit of a trial court decision; the ordinary principle is sessions court has to be approached first. This objection was raised, and the High Court said it will be examined. The high court has not decided on merits ultimately. He (Kejriwal) has challenged that order."

Raju submitted that Sisodia, Kavitha, and all went through trial court; therefore, the "snakes and ladders" term had been used by the Apex Court.

To this, Justice Bhuyan said, "Snakes and ladders is not a charitable observation by this court for prosecution."

Raju argued, "They can't go to the High Court first and then to the Sessions Court. Provision has to be interpreted in such a manner...there is no special circumstance, other than that he's an influential political personality." The ASG submitted, "Chargesheet was filed before he approached this court. By not annexing it, he (Kejriwal) has suppressed material. He does not want court to look at it. How can this be done? On the ground, that he has not produced chargesheet papers, this application should go, without that material, can he say give me bail? He has not referred to one single page. I am making a very serious point."

The ASG contended, "I am told trial court has also taken cognizance of the chargesheet. So prima facie case is made out, as per....judgement. The High Court was not given opportunity to look into merits. If bail is granted, it would be demoralizing the High Court."

To this submission, the Bench said, "Don't say that, how is that demoralizing? Don't say that! How can it be? We will never demoralize our own institution."

Additionally, ASG Raju contended that if Kejriwal comes out, the witnesses will turn hostile.

After hearing the arguments at length, the Court reserved order in Kejriwal's bail plea.