New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed pleas filed by Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Part (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.
Pronouncing verdict on Kejriwal’s plea seeking bail in the corruption case, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted him liberty to approach the special court.
The High Court earlier had reserved its verdict on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest in the corruption case and grant of regular bail in the CBI case.
While during the hearing into the matter, the counsel representing Kejriwal assailed his arrest by the CBI in the corruption case and sought his release on bail in the corruption case, 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, submitted before the High Court that the arrest of Kejriwal in the corruption case was an “insurance arrest” and he was arrested by the CBI because the agency felt that he may come out in the money laundering case and therefore, the CBI arrested him.
Singhvi further argued that the Delhi Chief Minister 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 from jail 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 pleas filed by Kejriwal questioning his arrest and seeking grant of bail objected to Singhvi calling Kejriwal’s arrest “insurance arrest”. “This term insurance arrest coined by him is unjustified,” Singh said.
The CBI also argued before the High Court that Kejriwal’s bail plea should first be argued before the trial court hearing the case, there are four chargesheets pending in the trial court and therefore, it is only proper that Kejriwal’s bail plea is first argued in the trial court because the trial court is familiar with all the facts.
“This court has the concurrent jurisdiction to hear the bail but all if the trial court first hears the bail, then the High Court will have the benefit of the trial court’s order,” Singh submitted.
The CBI also opposed the submissions made Kejriwal’s counsel that five accused in the CBI case have already been granted bail and there is no reason to deny him bail in the case, submitting that the five people who are granted bail were working under the authority of BRS leader K Kavitha, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and AAP leader Manish Sisodia or Kejriwal.
“They are not primary people. They were working under them (Kavitha, Sisodia and Kejriwal),”, Singh submitted.
Supreme Court granted interim bail to Kejriwal in money laundering case
Kejriwal, who was also arrested in an excise policy-linked money laundering case, was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court, which referred his plea challenging his arrest in the money laundering case to a larger bench, saying that certain legal questions raised by him in his petition challenging his arrest in the money laundering case need to be considered by a larger bench of the apex court.
