New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday said that it would pronounce today its verdict on the pleas of Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest in the excise policy-linked corruption case, registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CB), and seeking grant of bail in the case.
The matter was mentioned today before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who said that the verdict is likely to be pronounced today.
High Court earlier reserved its verdict on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest, grant of bail
The High Court had earlier reserved its verdict on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest and grant of bail in the in the corruption case after hearing submissions made by the counsels representing Kejriwal and the CBI.
While the counsel representing Kejriwal assailed his arrest by the CBI in the corruption case and sought his release on bail, the counsel representing the CBI opposed Kejriwal’s pleas challenging his arrest and seeking bail in the case.
What did Kejriwal argue before the High Court?
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Kejriwal, argued before the High Court that Kejriwal’s arrest in the corruption case was an “insurance arrest” and he was arrested by the central agency because it felt that he may come out in the money laundering case and therefore, the CBI arrested him.
Singhvi further argued that Kejriwal has effectively three release orders – two by the Supreme Court and one by the trial court – in his favour under very very stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and these release orders show that he is entitled to be released and he would have been released but for the insurance arrest by the CBI, he is still in the jail.
“The dates of the case cry out for themselves. There was no need to arrest, no necessity to arrest and I would say no intention to arrest Kejriwal. But they have to do it because they want to keep me behind bars,” Singhvi argued before the High Court, adding that Kejriwal’s was not as per the mandate of the law and he was entitled to bail while asserting that Kejriwal was “not a terrorist”.
CBI opposed Kejriwal’s pleas challenging arrest, grant of bail
Advocate DP Singh, who appeared for the CBI, opposed the submissions made by Kejriwal’s counsel and objected to Singhvi calling Kejriwal’s arrest “insurance arrest”. “This term insurance arrest coined by him is unjustified,” Singh said.