SC grants Arvind Kejriwal bail, release in 6 months.
This decision follows Arvind Kejriwal’s nearly six-month detention, during which he faced charges from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) connected to the same case. Kejriwal had been accused of involvement in a high-profile financial misconduct case, leading to his prolonged custody. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail comes as a relief for the Delhi Chief Minister, although he remains under investigation. The ED had earlier sought extended detention due to the complexity of the case, but the court deemed six months in custody sufficient, allowing for Kejriwal’s release under bail conditions while legal proceedings continue.
On Friday, September 13, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case related to the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam. This decision marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battle involving Kejriwal, who had been in custody for nearly six months. Alongside the CBI charges, Kejriwal also faced allegations from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) concerning the same matter.
The Supreme Court’s ruling comes after a detailed examination of arguments presented by both sides. The Court issued its judgment with “conditions to be fixed by the trial court,” and delivered two concurring opinions. Justice Surya Kant granted bail to Kejriwal, while Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in a separate opinion, raised critical questions about the timing and justification of Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI. Justice Bhuyan deemed the arrest “belated” and unjustified, highlighting procedural concerns.
The bench of Justices Kant and Bhuyan had reserved their decision after hearing oral arguments from senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Singhvi contended that the CBI’s decision to arrest Kejriwal was hasty and motivated by the desire to prevent his release in the ongoing money laundering case. He argued that the arrest was an “insurance measure” due to Kejriwal’s alleged non-cooperation and evasive responses. Singhvi emphasized that under several Supreme Court judgments, cooperation with the investigation should not be construed as a requirement for self-incrimination or confession.
Singhvi further asserted that Kejriwal, as a constitutional functionary and Delhi’s Chief Minister, satisfied the criteria for bail. He argued that Kejriwal was not a flight risk, would cooperate with the investigation, and could not tamper with the extensive evidence after two years of proceedings. This appeal was based on the principle that Kejriwal’s continued detention was not warranted given the specifics of the case.
Conversely, ASG Raju opposed the bail, expressing concerns that Kejriwal’s release could lead to witnesses becoming “hostile.” Raju highlighted that several Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidates in the Goa Assembly election had provided statements only after Kejriwal’s arrest. He argued that releasing Kejriwal could jeopardize the ongoing investigation by influencing witnesses. Additionally, Raju contended that Kejriwal’s petition should not have bypassed the Delhi High Court, and that the arrest had been sanctioned by a court order, making claims of fundamental rights violations irrelevant.
Recently, the Supreme Court had also granted bail to other prominent figures in the excise policy case, including senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia, BRS leader K. Kavitha, and former AAP communications chief Vijay Nair. The CBI argued that Kejriwal’s bail plea was a political maneuver, despite various court orders indicating the prima facie satisfaction of the offences committed.
On July 12, the Supreme Court had previously granted Kejriwal interim bail concerning the ED’s money laundering case. However, he remained in custody due to the ongoing CBI investigation. With this recent Supreme Court decision, Kejriwal is expected to be released, though he continues to face legal challenges related to the alleged scam.