The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal‘s pleas for bail and a challenge against his arrest related to the now-abandoned liquor policy of the capital. The case is being heard by a bench led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Previously, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Kejriwal in a separate case involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), but he remains imprisoned in connection with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case. If the Supreme Court grants bail in this instance, Kejriwal could be released after spending over five months in jail.
Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26. On August 5, the Delhi High Court upheld his arrest, stating that the CBI had demonstrated the potential for Kejriwal to influence witnesses.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, described the situation as unprecedented. He argued that Kejriwal had already received relief in two cases under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Singhvi claimed the CBI’s arrest was an “insurance arrest” intended to keep him in jail.
Singhvi argued that the CBI had arrested Kejriwal after two years and claimed that the basis of the arrest was solely non-cooperation, which he contends should not be a reason for incarceration. He pointed out that Kejriwal, being a constitutional official, cannot be a flight risk, and that there is no concern of evidence tampering or witness influence given the extensive documentation and charges already filed.
Singhvi further argued that Kejriwal had been deemed fit for release twice, including by the Supreme Court under the stringent conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA. He criticized the special judge’s grounds for arrest as vague and lacking substantial material.
During the proceedings, Justice Kant questioned the duration of the bail hearing, expressing concern over the amount of time being devoted to the matter. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the CBI, requested equal time to present his case. Singhvi agreed, proposing to finish his arguments by noon.
The CBI’s counsel challenged Singhvi’s argument, suggesting that the discussions on bail and arrest should not be conflated. Singhvi responded by emphasizing that all other co-accused had been released and that prolonged detention was unjustifiable. He referred to previous judgments, including one involving Manish Sisodia, to argue that the trial related to the excise policy is unlikely to conclude soon.
