The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the liquor policy case. The Aam Aadmi Party chief has been in jail for about five months.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan pronounced two separate judgements in the case. Kant held that Kejriwal’s prolonged imprisonment constituted an “unjust deprivation of liberty” but maintained that there were no procedural irregularities in his arrest, The Hindu reported. Bhuyan, however, said that the chief minister’s arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation was unjustified.
Kejriwal had filed petitions seeking bail and challenging his arrest in the liquor policy case. The court had reserved its verdict on September 5.
Kant said in his judgement that there was no merit in the Aam Aadmi Party chief’s argument that the CBI failed to comply with Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when arresting him.
The section lays down conditions under which a person can be arrested without a warrant.
Bhuyan, however, said that the CBI arrested the chief minister only to frustrate the bail granted to Kejriwal in the case, according to Live Law.
Kejriwal was granted bail in his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate by a trial court on June 20. The Delhi High Court, however, issued an interim stay on the order the next day as it allowed an urgent hearing of a petition by the central agency.
On June 25, the High Court stayed the bail in its final order and said that the trial court “did not properly appreciate the material on record and the averments of ED [Enforcement Directorate]”.
On July 12, the Supreme Court granted Kejriwal interim bail in the case filed against him by the Enforcement Directorate. However, he remained in jail as he had been arrested by the CBI in the same case on June 25.
Bhuyan on Friday noted that Kejriwal was not arrested by the CBI for 22 months, and was taken into custody only on the cusp of his release in the ED case.
“It appears only after the trial court granted regular bail to the appellant in the ED case, that CBI became active and sought custody,” he said. “It [CBI] didn’t feel the need to arrest for over 22 months. Such action raises serious questions on the arrest itself.”
Bhuyan added: “I fail to understand the great urgency on part of CBI to arrest appellant when he was on the cusp of release in ED cas…The belated arrest of the appellant was unjustified.”
Both the judges, however, remained unanimous in their decision to grant Kejriwal bail on the grounds that the chargesheet had been filed in the case and that the trial was unlikely to be completed in the near future, according to Live Law.
The bail conditions imposed by the bench were the same as the ones given by the trial court. This included Kejriwal not being allowed to visit the chief minister’s office or the Delhi secretariat.
During the earlier proceedings, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, contended that the CBI taking him into custody was an “insurance arrest”, or a way to keep the chief minister behind bars even if he got bail in the Enforcement Directorate case.
Singhvi added that the Aam Aadmi Party chief had not been arrested for about two years even though the case was registered in August 2022.
On the other hand, the CBI alleged that Kejriwal played a pivotal role in formulating the now-scrapped liquor policy. The agency alleged that his actions were not only illegal, but also part of a larger conspiracy involving financial irregularities and misuse of public office.
Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21, which is investigating allegations of money laundering in the case based on a first information report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The central agency is looking into allegations of corruption against Kejriwal in the case. The Enforcement Directorate is investigating allegations of money laundering linked to the matter.
The two central agencies have alleged that the Aam Aadmi Party government modified Delhi’s now-scrapped liquor policy by increasing the commission for wholesalers from 5% to 12%. This allegedly facilitated the receipt of bribes from wholesalers who had a substantial market share and turnover.