The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to grant interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a corruption case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the alleged excise policy scam and sought a response from the probe agency on his plea challenging his arrest.
As the hearing commenced before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, submitted that he had got interim bail on three occasions in the money laundering case, also linked to the alleged scam, despite the stringent conditions laid down for grant of bail in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Singhvi cited the top court's interim bail orders passed on May 10 and July 12, as well as the regular bail granted by the trial court on June 20.
He informed the bench that the June 20 order of the trial court was stayed by the Delhi High Court on an "oral mention".
Singhvi argued when Kejriwal could secure bail despite the stringent conditions laid down under the PMLA, he cannot be denied regular bail in the CBI case since the Prevention of Corruption Act does not have similar rigorous provisions like the anti-money laundering law.
"I hate to say so but I have said this everywhere. This particular arrest is what might be called insurance arrest. You are having me interrogated on April 23 for nine hours, you do not have any further action till March 24 when the ED arrests me. I get three release orders and just on the cusp of the order, I am arrested in June," Singhvi said.
Referring to Kejriwal's health concerns, Singhvi requested for interim bail. He said an application seeking the relief has already been filed.
"We are not granting any interim bail," the top court told Singhvi.
The senior lawyer then requested for a "shortest date" and the bench posted the matter for hearing on August 23.
The Delhi High Court had on August 5 upheld the arrest of the chief minister as legal, and said there was no malice in the acts done by the CBI which was able to demonstrate how the AAP supremo could influence witnesses who could muster the courage to depose only after his arrest.
The high court had asked him to move the trial court for regular bail in the CBI case.
The high court had noted that the loop of evidence against the chief minister got closed after collection of relevant evidence following his arrest by the CBI and it cannot be said that it was without any justifiable reason or illegal.
It said Kejriwal is not an ordinary citizen but a distinguished recipient of the Magsaysay Award and the convenor of the 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 (CBI)," the high court had said.
The high court had dismissed Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest, saying it was only after sufficient evidence was collected and sanction was obtained in April, 2024 that the agency proceeded with further probe against him.
It had noted that the links to the crime extended even to Punjab but material witnesses were not coming forward due to the influence exercised by Kejriwal by virtue of his position. It was only after he got arrested that the witnesses came forward to record their statements, the high court had said.
The chief minister, who was arrested by the ED on March 21, was granted bail by the trial court in the money laundering case on June 20. However, the trial court's order was stayed by the high court.
On July 12, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in the money laundering case.
The excise policy was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi lieutenant governor ordered a CBI probe into alleged irregularities and corruption involving its formulation and execution.
According to the CBI and the ED, irregularities were committed while modifying the excise policy and undue favours extended to licence holders.
