The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal opposing his arrest in connection with the Delhi excise policy case.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna asked the CBI to submit its response and scheduled the next hearing on July 17.

The Delhi CM was taken into CBI custody on June 26, when he was in judicial custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case. In the ED case, Kejriwal was recently granted bail by the trial court on June 20, but the Delhi High Court subsequently stayed it on June 25.

Kejriwal was then in CBI custody till June 29. After the CBI failed to get an extension of custody on June 29, he was sent to judicial custody till July 12.

The Aam Aadmi Party leader continued to maintain in his appeal to the High Court that his arrest was illegal and in breach of the statutory mandate set under Sections 41 and 60A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The plea read that in the present case despite the offence being punishable with a 7-year term, the requirement of Section 41A and 60A notice was not followed by the investigating officer and hence, the arrest of the petitioner (Arvind Kejriwal) without the compliance of the requirement as mandated under law is illegal. Therefore, he is seeking orders to release him from arrest and end the CBI's investigation against him.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Arvind Kejriwal, said although the CBI had filed a FIR in the case in August 2022, the arrest did not take place for nearly two years.

In April 2023, Kejriwal was called questioned for nine hours. However, after April nothing much has been done till now. He is currently being held on a 2022 FIR. Singhvi added there can't be a necessity, urgency of arrest.

Singhvi also highlighted that since Kejriwal is already in trial in the ED case, there is no reason to worry about him tampering with evidence, posing a threat, or attempting to flee.

A few factors must be included in the arrest memo. In his situation, there is no indication of any terrorist activity or potential interference. It was argued that he was already in judicial custody, Singhvi said.