More Stories

Informist, Friday, Sep 13, 2024

 

--SC upholds CBI's arrest of Kejriwal in liquor policy case 

--SC grants bail to Kejriwal on CBI probe into liquor policy case

--SC: Kejriwal not to make public comment on liquor policy case merits

--SC judge: Kejriwal's CBI arrest raises more questions than answers 

--SC judge: CBI arrested Kejriwal to frustrate enforcement case bail 

--SC: Kejriwal can't visit CM office, Delhi Secretariat 

--SC judge in Kejriwal case: CBI must dispel notion of "caged parrot" 

 

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court today granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi liquor policy case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Kejriwal, who was already granted interim bail by the apex court in the Enforcement Directorate's probe in the same case, will now come out of jail after almost six months. 

 

However, the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asked Arvind Kejriwal not to visit the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat, a condition which was also put by the apex court while granting him bail in the Enforcement agency's case. Kejriwal shall not make any public comments about the liquor policy case and be present for all hearings before the trial court unless exempted, said the apex court. 

 

Justice Kant said that completion of the trial is unlikely in the near future in the CBI's case. Kejriwal satisfies the triple condition for the grant of bail and prolonged incarceration of the accused while trial is on cannot be justified, added Justice Kant.

 

Regarding the CBI's arrest of Kejriwal, Justice Kant said that there was no impediment in arresting a person who was already in custody for another case for purposes of investigation. Justice Kant noted the CBI's argument that the arrest was necessary and since there was a judicial order regarding the same. 

 

Justice Kant said that there was no merit in Kejriwal's contention that Section 41(a)(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure was not complied with. "We have held that the appellant's (Kejriwal) arrest does not suffer from any procedural flaw. Thus, arrest is valid," said Justice Kant.  

 

However, Justice Bhuyan said that it has a definite point of view on the need and necessity of arrest of Kejriwal by the CBI. Kejriwal's arrest by the CBI raised more questions than it answers. Justice Bhuyan said that it appeared that only after the trial court granted regular bail to Kejriwal in the enforcement agency’s case on Jun 20, that CBI became active and sought custody of him. The CBI didn't feel the need to arrest Kejriwal for over 22 months, said Justice Bhuyan, adding that such an action raises serious questions about arrest itself. Justice Bhuyan said that the arrest by the CBI was only to frustrate the bail granted to Kejriwal in the Enforcement Directorate's case.

 

Further, Justice Bhuyan said that the CBI can't justify Kejriwal's arrest and continue his detention citing evasive replies by him. The accused can't be compelled to make an inculpatory statement, Justice Bhuyan said, adding that it would be a travesty of justice to keep Kejriwal incarcerated when he is on bail in the money laundering case. Justice Bhuyan said that the CBI's arrest of Kejriwal was unjustified, and thus he should be released forthwith. 

 

Justice Bhuyan also expressed his reservation about the conditions put upon Kejriwal for the bail. "I have serious reservations about the conditions which bar Kejriwal from entering the secretariat or signing files. But, I am not making a comment due to judicial restraint as it was in a different Enforcement Directorate case," said Justice Bhuyan.

 

Justice Bhuyan pulled up the CBI and said that every effort must be made by them to show that the arrest was not made in a high-handed manner. Efforts must be made by the investigating agency to remove the perception that the investigation was not carried out fairly, said Justice Bhuyan. "Not so long ago, this court had castigated the CBI, comparing it to a caged parrot," said Justice Bhuyan, adding that in a country perception matters and the CBI must dispel the notion of being a caged parrot and it must show it is an uncaged parrot. The CBI should be like Caesar's wife, above suspicion, he added. 

 

The Delhi government had announced an excise policy in November 2021, allowing private companies to distribute liquor in the national capital. Later, the policy was withdrawn after allegations of cartelisation and monopoly. Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on Mar 21 in connection with a money-laundering case stemming from the liquor policy case.

 

Both the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI are investigating the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy. While the Enforcement Directorate is investigating the money laundering aspect of the case, the CBI is looking at irregularities. On Jul 12, the Supreme Court granted the Delhi chief minister interim bail in the Enforcement Directorate's probe in the same case and referred legal questions arising out of his petition challenging his arrest by the agency to a larger bench of the court. 

  

On Jun 26, the CBI arrested Kejriwal after the Rouse Avenue court permitted the probe agency to interrogate him in the case. Thereafter, the Rouse Avenue court on Sep 3 took cognisance of the fourth supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI. In its fourth supplementary chargesheet, the CBI has alleged that Kejriwal was one of the main conspirators in the case. It claimed that the kickback money was spent as per Kejriwal's wishes as the entire money was sent as funds to the Aam Aadmi Party. The probe agency has said Kejriwal had promised 9 mln rupees to each candidate in the 40 constituencies during elections in Goa.  

 

Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, had termed CBI's arrest as "insurance arrest" as it was made on Jun 26 on the cusp of Kejriwal's release in the Enforcement Directorate case. Singhvi said that though the case was registered by the CBI in 2022, Kejriwal was not arrested for about two years. 

 

Further, Singhvi said that the evidence in the case was documentary in nature, and it was already collected by the agency and hence there was no risk of tampering with the evidence. Singhvi said that the arrest of Kejriwal by the CBI was not preceded by a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Objecting to this, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for CBI, said that a notice under Section 41A was not required as Kejriwal was already in custody.

 

Raju said that Kejriwal should have first approached the trial court for bail rather than going directly to the Delhi High Court. Raju said that co-accused in the case, Aam Aadmi Party leaders Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader Kalvakuntla Kavitha had all first moved the trial court, but Kejriwal never went there in the CBI case.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Deepshikha Bhardwaj

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd, a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2024. All rights reserved.