Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi Excise Policy Case, Upholds Legality of Arrest

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Kejriwal in 

Delhi Excise Policy Case, Upholds Legality of Arrest

In a recent Supreme Court decision, the appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3816 and 3817 of 2024 involving Arvind Kejriwal versus the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were addressed. These appeals arise from a Special Leave Petition challenging Kejriwal's arrest by the CBI in relation to alleged irregularities and conspiracy surrounding the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.

Background of the Case

1. FIR and Allegations: The CBI filed an FIR on 17 August 2022, accusing officials in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) of engaging in conspiracy and corruption while implementing the Excise Policy 2021-2022. This policy allegedly involved undue benefits to certain liquor wholesalers and retailers. Though Kejriwal’s name was not initially mentioned in the FIR, his arrest came after further investigation by the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

   

2. Arrest and Interim Bail: Kejriwal was arrested by the ED under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on 21 March 2024, and later by the CBI. His arrest was challenged as illegal, arguing that it violated procedural requirements, particularly under Sections 41(1) and 41A of the CrPC, which govern arrests without warrants.

Key Legal Contentions

Arguments by Kejriwal’s Counsel:

- The arrest was claimed to be illegal, with a lack of **due notice** under **Section 41A CrPC** and non-compliance with the statutory grounds necessary for arrest under **Section 41(1)(b)(ii)**.

- Kejriwal was accused of **non-cooperation** during interrogation, but his counsel argued this did not justify his continued detention.

- The arrest was purported to have been made for reasons beyond investigation needs, potentially to frustrate the bail granted to Kejriwal in another case filed by the ED.

CBI’s Response:

- The CBI argued that Kejriwal’s arrest was necessary to ensure proper investigation, asserting that Kejriwal had been evasive in his responses.

- They sought to interrogate him to further uncover the conspiracy and money trail linked to alleged election-related expenses in Goa.

Supreme Court’s Findings

1. Legality of Arrest: The Supreme Court upheld the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest, noting that the arrest complied with Section 41A CrPC, as permission had been sought from the Trial Court for his interrogation. It was noted that since Kejriwal was already in judicial custody for the ED matter, formal notice for arrest was not required.

2. Bail Application: Despite the legality of the arrest, the Court focused on Kejriwal’s prolonged incarceration, pointing out that he had been in custody for an extended period, and given that the investigation was complete with multiple chargesheets filed, there was no risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses. 

3. Granting Bail: The Supreme Court allowed Kejriwal’s appeal for regular bail, setting aside the Delhi High Court’s earlier denial. Conditions were imposed, including restrictions on public comments related to the case and cooperation with the trial court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance in arrests while balancing the rights of the accused, particularly concerning the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Kejriwal’s continued detention was deemed unnecessary, and he was granted bail under specific conditions, reaffirming the principles of justice and fairness in criminal jurisprudence.