The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the petitions filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking bail and challenging his arrest in the liquor policy case, which is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Live Law reported.
The Aam Aadmi Party leader has challenged the August 5 order of the Delhi High Court dismissing his plea against his arrest by the agency. He has also filed a Special Leave Petition against the High Court’s refusal to consider his bail plea.
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.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Aam Aadmi Party leader, told a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan that the chief minister received release orders three times in the money-laundering case despite the “stringent rigours” of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Under Section 45 of the law, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the offence in question, and it must also be satisfied that they are not likely to commit any crimes while out on bail.
Singhvi was referring to the interim bail orders passed by the Supreme Court on May 10 and July 12, and the regular bail order passed by the trial court on June 20, which was stayed by the High Court.
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 Central Bureau of Investigation in the same case on June 25.
On Thursday, Singhvi also claimed that Kejriwal’s arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation was an “insurance arrest”, Live Law reported. He added that the Aam Aadmi Party chief had not been arrested for about two years even though the case was registered in August 2022.
The senior advocate also said that the chief minister satisfied the triple test for the grant of bail. The triple test refers to the accused person not being a flight risk, not being likely to tamper with evidence and not being likely to influence witnesses.
Challenging the validity of Kejriwal’s arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Singhvi said that it was not preceded by a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to Live Law. The section pertains to the issuance of a notice of appearance before a police officer.
In response, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the central agency, said that the notice was not required as Kejriwal was already in custody. He added that this argument was a mere “technicality”.
Singhvi responded: “Matters of liberty cannot be a technicality…What I am referring to are procedural safeguards.”
On his part, Raju said that Kejriwal should first approach the trial court for bail. “You can’t send me [Kejriwal] back to trial court, which has considered the same thing,” Singhvi said.
Singhvi also invoked an observation made by the Supreme Court while hearing a plea by Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia, who is also accused in the liquor policy case. Sisodia was granted bail by the Supreme Court on August 9.
“Now, relegating the appellant to again approach the trial court and thereafter the High Court and only thereafter this court, in our view, would be making him play a game of ‘Snake and Ladder’,” Singhvi quoted the top court as saying during Sisodia’s hearing.
He also noted that the Supreme Court had said that the trial in the liquor policy case was unlikely to conclude any time soon.
In response, Raju said that the other co-accused persons who were granted bail by the top court, including Sisodia and Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha, first approached the trial court. Kavitha was granted bail by the Supreme Court on August 28.
Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21, which is investigating allegations of money laundering in the liquor policy case based on a first information report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
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.