HC reserves order on Kejriwal's pleas challenging arrest, seeking bail

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved the order on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by Central Bureau Investigation (CBI) in connection with Excise policy case. The Court also reserved the order on the issue of Kejriwal's plea for interim bail.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna after hearing the arguments at length, decided to reserve the order on Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest.

Meanwhile the Court fixed July 29, 2024 for hearing on regular bail plea moved by Arvind Kejriwal in the matter.

During the hearing, CBI lawyer DP Singh submitted that Kejriwal's petitions stated that contrary to the averments of the Petitioner, there exists no question of re-appreciation of the material at the stage of investigation, more specifically since investigation includes any or all proceedings for the collection of evidence, which is ongoing. The proceedings at this stage are distinct from the opinion formed by the investigating officer while filing a final report under Section 173 CrPC. There is ample material available on record to justify and necessity to arrest of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was also confronted with the said material during his examination.

CBI further submitted that it is the sole domain of the investigating agency to both interrogate and arrest the accused, after complying with the requirements of law. With the Petitioner remaining evasive during his interrogation on June 25, 2024, the CBI deemed the custodial interrogation of the petitioner necessary, more specifically since it is more elicitation oriented and an important right in favour of the investigating agency to unearth the truth.

Section 41-A CrPC, read with Section 41-A (3), does not mandate a blanket ban on arrest against whom there is a reasonable suspicion of commission of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of up to 7 years. The law on the subject mandates that the investigating officer in such cases should be satisfied about the necessity of arrest under the conditions as noted in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Section 41 (1) (b) (ii) and should record reasons for the same, CBI told Delhi High Court.

However, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal argued that the most striking feature of this case is that IT is an insurance arrest.

"I have three release orders in my favour, those three orders are under much much more stringent provisions. Apex court has recently decided to grant him bail indefinitely. My client also got bail order in his favour in ED case from trial court which was later stayed by Delhi High Court. The CBI FIR is 17/08/2022. I am not named in that. On 14/4/2023 i was summoned under Sec 160 CrPC as a witness," he said.

Singhvi further submitted that Kejriwal's arrest by CBI was unnecessary.

"The dates of the case cry out for themselves. Trial court has given me regular bail under PMLA on June 20 and after four days, the CBI took the order to question me in Judicial custody and arrested me on June 26. I never get a copy of application. No notice was given, order is passed," he submitted.

Even I was not heard. He further submitted in Delhi HC that recently Imran Khan is released but gets arrested again in another case. It can't happen in our country.

Singhvi further submitted before Delhi HC that the trial court allowed CBI's application regarding issuance of production warrants despite the probe agency interrogating him on June 25 for almost 3 hours.

Recently Delhi Chief Minister approached Delhi High Court stating that the applicant/Kejriwal is the National Convenor of a National Political Party (Aam Aadmi Party) and the sitting Chief Minister of Delhi who is being subjected to gross persecution and harassment for wholly malafide and extraneous considerations, is knocking at the doors of this Court seeking regular bail in this case.

He has recently already approached challenging his wholly non-est and illegal arrest as well as patently routine remand orders passed by the Trial Court. The said writ petition had come up for hearing before this Court on July 2,2024 when this Court issued notice and listed the matter for hearing on July 17,2024.