The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the Central Bureau of Investigation's submission that Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal should be sent to the trial court with his plea seeking bail in the corruption case lodged by the agency in connection with the excise policy 'scam'.
The top court said that generally, the trial court should consider the prayer seeking bail once a charge sheet is filed as the material that an investigating authority may have been able to procure would undoubtedly facilitate that court to form a prima facie opinion on the gravity of the offence and the degree of involvement of the accused.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, however, said there can be no straitjacket formula which enumerates that every case concerning the consideration of bail should depend upon the filing of a charge sheet.
Each case ought to be assessed on its own merits, recognising that no one-size-fits-all formula exists for determining bail, it said.
The top court said an undertrial should, ordinarily, first approach the trial court for bail, as this process not only provides the accused an opportunity for initial relief but also allows the high court to serve as a secondary avenue if the trial court denies bail for inadequate reasons.
"However, superior courts should adhere to this procedural recourse from the outset. If an accused approaches the high court directly without first seeking relief from the trial court, it is generally appropriate for the high court to redirect them to the trial court at the threshold.
"Nevertheless, if there are significant delays following notice, it may not be prudent to relegate the matter to the trial court at a later stage. Bail being closely tied to personal liberty, such claims should be adjudicated promptly on their merits, rather than oscillating between courts on mere procedural technicalities," Justice Kant said in his 27-page judgment.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the CBI, had argued that Kejriwal should be relegated to the trial court as he approached the high court directly for bail.
Raju urged that Kejriwal should not be granted any special treatment merely because of the position of power he holds or his political stature.
He canvassed that Kejriwal deserves to be treated like any other undertrial and, hence, he must first approach the trial court for bail.
The apex court said the issue was more or less academic in the instant case as the high court did not relegate Kejriwal to the trial court at the preliminary stage.
"Since notice was issued and the parties were apparently heard on merits by the high court, we do not deem it necessary at this stage to relegate the appellant to the trial court even though filing of a charge sheet is a change in the circumstances," Justice Kant said.
Justice Bhuyan, who wrote a separate 33-page judgment, wrote that if the high court thought of remanding Kejriwal to the trial court, it could have done so at the threshold itself.
"After issuing notice, after hearing the parties at length and after reserving the judgment for about a week, the above order was passed by the high court. Though couched in a language which appears to be in favour of the appellant, in practical terms it has only resulted in prolonging the incarceration of the appellant for a far longer period, impacting his personal liberty," Justice Bhuyan said.
The top court granted bail to Kejriwal in the corruption case, saying prolonged incarceration amounts to unjust deprivation of liberty.
The excise policy was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi lieutenant governor ordered a CBI investigation 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.
