The Delhi High Court on August 5, dismissed Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case concerning the Liquor Policy matter. Delhi High Court stated that it cannot be said that the arrest of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal was without justifiable reason.
Regarding the bail application, the court has disposed of it, granting Kejriwal the option to approach the trial court for further relief. Earlier today, Arvind Kejriwal’s legal team mentioned the matter before the bench of Justices Neena Bansal Krishna, urging the court to expedite the decision on his petitions.
The same bench had reserved its order on Arvind Kejriwal’s regular bail plea in the CBI case related to the Liquor Policy on July 29, 2024. Additionally, on July 17, 2024, the court reserved its order on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI in the same case.
During the hearing, the Central Bureau of Investigation opposed the bail plea, referring to Kejriwal as the “sutradhar” of the case. During the arguments, CBI’s Special counsel DP Singh informed the Delhi High Court that as their investigation progressed, they discovered more evidence implicating Arvind Kejriwal. The chargesheet had been filed naming six individuals, including Kejriwal, but five of them have not been arrested.
The CBI informed the Delhi High Court that they had completed their investigation and filed a chargesheet within a month. They claimed that Arvind Kejriwal was the central figure or “sutradhar” in the Liquor policy scam. The CBI counsel stated that Arvind Kejriwal, as the head of the cabinet, signed the Liquor policy, circulated it to his colleagues, and received their signatures within a single day. This occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The CBI counsel further submitted that C. Aravind, an IAS officer under Manish Sisodia, testified that Vijay Nair brought a copy of the Liquor policy to be entered into the computer, and Arvind Kejriwal was present at that time. This, according to the CBI, indicates Kejriwal’s direct involvement in the matter. CBI counsel DP Singh stated that the investigation agency has traced Rs 44 crores of money related to the case, which was sent to Goa. Arvind Kejriwal instructed his candidates not to worry about the funds and to focus on contesting the elections, said Advocate DP Singh.
CBI counsel DP Singh argued that while direct evidence might be lacking, witness testimonies, including three witnesses and 164 statements made in court, clearly indicate Kejriwal’s involvement. Singh asserted that such evidence emerged only after Kejriwal’s arrest, as Punjab officers would not have come forward otherwise.
CBI counsel DP Singh stated that after the issue blew up in the media, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal sought ex post facto approval from the council of ministers.
The CBI stated that while certain circumstances allow the High Court to hear bail applications directly, it cannot be the first court for bail hearings. With the final chargesheet now filed, the CBI is prepared for the trial to commence, said Advocate DP Singh representing the CBI.
However, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Arvind Kejriwal, began his submissions by arguing that the case represents an “insurance arrest.”
He stated that Kejriwal has been granted bail thrice in the ED case. Singhvi also pointed out that since Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI, there has been no confrontation or new developments. He argued that the distinction between bail and writ petitions does not impact the case’s merit.
He emphasized that the policy was the result of nine inter-ministerial committees, involving officials from various departments, and was published in July 2021 after a year of deliberation.
Delhi Chief Minister had approached the Delhi High Court stated that the applicant/Kejriwal is the National Convenor of a National Political Party (Aam Aadmi Party) and the sitting Chief Minister of Delhi who is being subjected to gross persecution and harassment for wholly malafide and extraneous considerations, is knocking at the doors of this Court seeking regular bail in this case.
(with inputs from ANI)
