The Supreme Court today adjourned the hearing of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s pleas challenging his arrest and seeking bail in the case registered by the CBI over the alleged Delhi Liquor Policy scam, after the CBI sought time to file a counter-affidavit in the matter.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan posted the matter on September 5 for hearing. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju sought time to file a counter-affidavit in one of Kejriwal’s petitions. He contended that CBI’s counter-affidavit has been filed in the other petition.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that one counter-affidavit was filed yesterday night at 8 PM with a deliberate design that the same does not reach the bench. Giving time to the CBI for filing a counter-affidavit, and to Arvind Kejriwal to file a rejoinder (if any), the bench posted the matter to September 5.
Arvind Kejriwal’s latest petition before the Supreme Court, filed through Advocate-on-Record Vivek Jain, challenges the Delhi High Court order of August 5, whereby his plea against CBI arrest was dismissed by a Single Judge bench with liberty to approach the trial Court for bail.
The AAP chief was formally arrested by CBI on June 26, 2024, while he was in custody of the Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case arising out of the alleged liquor policy scam.
Later, on July 12, the apex court granted Kejriwal interim bail in the money laundering case, while referring his petition challenging ED arrest to a larger bench. Nonetheless, he continued to remain in judicial custody due to his arrest by the CBI.
Challenging the CBI arrest and seeking bail, Arvind Kejriwal moved the Delhi High Court. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on August 5 dismissed his plea challenging CBI arrest, but insofar as bail was concerned, liberty was given to approach the trial Court. Disappointed by the High Court order, Arvind Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court.
On August 14, the top court issued notice on the plea, but clarified that it was not granting interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal. In the Court, Senior Advocate Singhvi argued that Kejriwal got interim bail on three occasions in the money laundering case despite the stringent rigors of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Furthermore, the senior counsel questioned how Kejriwal could be denied regular bail in the CBI case, when he had gotten bail under the PMLA, since the Prevention of Corruption Act does not have stringent conditions similar to the money laundering law. Currently, he termed the arrest by the CBI an insurance arrest, which was made on June 26 on the cusp of Arvind Kejriwal’s release in the ED case.