CBI Opposes Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail, Labels Him ‘Mastermind’ of Liquor Policy Case
In a significant legal development, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has opposed the bail plea of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, terming him the ‘sutradhaar’ (mastermind) of the alleged liquor policy scam. The agency, in a supplementary chargesheet, justified Kejriwal’s arrest, emphasizing that his involvement was pivotal to the investigation.
Kejriwal, who also leads the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), was detained by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21, 2024, in connection with a money laundering case tied to the purported liquor policy fraud. Although the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in this money laundering case, he remains in custody due to the CBI’s subsequent arrest related to the same issue.
During the hearing, CBI’s counsel Advocate DP Singh contended that merely filing a chargesheet does not warrant bail for Kejriwal. Singh highlighted that courts had denied bail to other co-accused in the case, including AAP leader Manish Sisodia and Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha, indicating the seriousness of the charges.
Singh argued that as the head of the cabinet, Kejriwal had hastily signed and implemented the policy during the second Covid-19 lockdown. He alleged that key meetings were held in Delhi, facilitated by chartered flights for members of the alleged “South Group,” who were involved in the scam.
The CBI claims to have substantial direct evidence against Kejriwal, which underscores the gravity of the offense and justifies his continued detention. In contrast, Kejriwal’s defense, led by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the CBI’s case is weak, relying largely on hearsay rather than concrete evidence.
Singhvi pointed out that the policy approval process involved the Lieutenant Governor and around 50 bureaucrats, all part of nine expert committees that spent a year analyzing the policy. He emphasized that Kejriwal, merely one of many involved, should not be singularly blamed, especially since the Lieutenant Governor also signed off on the policy.
Singhvi accused the CBI of acting on assumptions and lacking substantive evidence. He argued that no tangible evidence or recoveries link Kejriwal to the alleged scam. He also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Antil’s case, which suggests that non-compliance with arrest provisions can entitle an accused to bail.
Countering Singhvi’s arguments, the CBI maintained that implicating the Lieutenant Governor as a co-accused was a diversionary tactic. The agency insisted it possesses both documentary and direct oral evidence against Kejriwal.
The Delhi High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, has reserved its order on Kejriwal’s bail plea. This case continues to draw significant attention, reflecting broader concerns about governance and accountability within Delhi’s administration.
In related developments, the CBI has also implicated other prominent political figures, highlighting the case’s wide-reaching implications. As the legal proceedings advance, the public and political observers remain keenly focused on the outcomes, which could have lasting impacts on Delhi’s political landscape and governance practices.