Delhi High Court Confirms Legitimacy of Arvind Kejriwal’s Arrest in Liquor Policy Case
On August 5, 2024, the Delhi High Court upheld the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) decision to arrest Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a corruption case linked to the liquor policy. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest and directed him to seek bail from the trial court.
The court determined that the arrest was justified and not driven by malice or a premeditated strategy. According to Justice Krishna, the CBI gathered sufficient evidence and obtained the necessary sanctions before proceeding with the arrest. The court noted that Kejriwal’s arrest followed a thorough investigation that revealed incriminating material, including chats indicating the transfer of illicit funds through Hawala channels to Goa. These findings necessitated custodial investigation to uncover a larger conspiracy.
Justice Krishna emphasized the importance of allowing the Investigating Officer (IO) to conduct investigations without interference unless there is clear evidence of abuse of power. She pointed out that the IO could arrest a suspect even if they had cooperated with interrogation under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, provided there are compelling reasons.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, N Hariharan, and Ramesh Gupta represented Kejriwal, arguing that his arrest was an “insurance arrest” following the Supreme Court’s interim bail in a related Enforcement Directorate (ED) case. Singhvi highlighted that the liquor policy had also been approved by the then-Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal, implying that Baijal and the involved bureaucrats should also face charges. He contended that the arrest was based on presumptions and hypotheses.
CBI Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh countered by labeling Kejriwal as the orchestrator of the entire scam, with direct evidence supporting his involvement. Singh pointed out that the trial court had already deemed the arrest legal, and filing a chargesheet did not automatically entitle Kejriwal to bail. He referenced the cases of co-accused Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha, who were denied bail despite the filing of chargesheets against them.
Singh argued that there were no prior court observations indicating any violations by the CBI and that Kejriwal was not entitled to prior notice under Delhi Prison Rules. These rules mandate seeking court permission to interrogate someone in judicial custody. Therefore, the CBI did not need to notify Kejriwal beforehand.
Kejriwal had bypassed the trial court and directly sought bail from the High Court. He remains in judicial custody, facing charges of corruption and money laundering. The Supreme Court had recently granted him interim bail in the money laundering case, pending review by a larger bench. Following a stay on his bail in the PMLA case by the Delhi High Court, the CBI examined Kejriwal in Tihar Jail with court permission before formally arresting him.
Kejriwal’s arrest by the ED occurred on March 21, and he received interim bail in May from the Supreme Court, which was valid until June 1 due to the general elections. He surrendered on June 2 after the interim bail expired.
The case, titled “Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI,” continues to unfold, with the High Court’s decision underscoring the legal backing of the arrest and the ongoing investigations into the alleged scam involving the Delhi liquor policy.