New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday upheld the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Admi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in an excise policy-linked corruption case
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI in the excise policy-linked corruption case, saying that there was no malice in the acts of the CBI which demonstrated how he could influence witnesses who could muster the courage to depose only after his arrest.
Here are the key points based on which the High Court rejected Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest:
- 1. The prosecution has explained that respecting his position as a Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi, the police treaded with trepidation and caution and proceeded to collect the evidence from other persons suspected to be the accused. Consequently, extensive investigations were carried out across India to ascertain the entire web of conspiracy involving numerous persons. The Investigating Agency has further explained that it is only after sufficient material was collected against the Petitioner over a period of one and a half years, that they sought the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, which was granted on 23.04.2024. The reasons for not proceeding immediately against the petitioner, after registration of the FIR is thus, well explained by the CBI and does not reek of malice.”
- 2. The petitioner (Kejriwal) is not an ordinary person but it is the Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi and the convenor of Aam Aadmi Party, which has its Government in Punjab. There were links of this crime even in Punjab but the material witnesses were not forthcoming for the simple reason of the influence exercised by the petitioner, by virtue of his position. It is only when he was arrested that the witnesses from the Punjab came forth to get their statements recorded and in fact, two of those witnesses, turned approver against the petitioner.
- 3. It is correct and true that the petitioner herein is not an ordinary citizen of this country but is a distinguished holder of Magsaysay Award and a convenor of Aam Aadmi Party. The control and the influence which he has on the witnesses, is prima facie borne out from the fact that these witnesses could muster the courage to be a witness only after the arrest of the petitioner, as highlighted by the Special Prosecutor. Also, it establishes that the loop of evidence against the Petitioner got closed after collection of relevant evidence after his arrest. No malice whatsoever, can be gathered from the acts of the respondent.
- 4. It is on record that the “arrest was not solely based on ambiguous terms of non-cooperative attitude and evasive replies but these terms were duly qualified and explained.” It was pointed out the aspects on which the petitioner was not forthcoming. It is not a case where he was being compelled to be a witness against himself in contradiction to his valuable rights enshrined and protected under Article 20(3) of Constitution of India, but it was his specific non-cooperative attitude, which was also borne out from the case diary, that hampered the collection of relevant evidence that prompted the arrest.
- 5. While permitting the arrest, the only factors to be considered by the Court were whether there is a reasonable suspicion or credible information about the commission of the offence. These factors were clearly detailed in the application for arrest dated 26.04.2024 and it is not the argument of either party that there were no suspicious circumstances against the petitioner in regard to the conspiracy to commit the offence.
