Delhi excise policy case: Arvind Kejriwal moves Supreme Court to quash CBI arrest, grant bail

Jailed Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the Delhi excise policy case and to release him on bail [Arvind Kejriwal v Central Bureau of Investigation]..The Delhi High Court had on August 5 refused to quash Kejriwal's arrest by the central agency and had asked him to approach trial court for bail. This has led to the instant appeal by Kejriwal before the apex court.The petition filed through advocate Vivek Jain was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud on Monday by Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi who sought urgent listing of the matter."Send an email," the CJI said..The CBI arrested Kejriwal on June 26 while he was in judicial custody in connection with a money laundering case probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the same scam. He and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders are accused of hatching a criminal conspiracy to create loopholes in the Delhi Excise Policy to favour some liquor sellers. The investigation agencies have alleged that the funds garnered from this exercise were used to fund the AAP's election campaign in Goa.He was first arrested by ED on March 26 but was later granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in the ED case. However, he continues to remain in jail since he is yet to get bail in the CBI case.Kejriwal had filed two separate petitions before the High Court - one seeking bail and another challenging his arrest by the CBI. The High Court rejected the plea to quash the arrest.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that there were adequate grounds to arrest Kejriwal.As regards bail, the Court did not pronounce on the merits but asked Kejriwal to move the trial court instead.Kejriwal had approached the High Court directly for bail..Kejriwal has challenged both these aspects before the Supreme Court.In his plea seeking bail, Kejriwal has said the High Court abdicated its function by relegating the matter to the trial though it has concurrent jurisdiction to decide the bail plea."The order (by High Court) has been rendered in a perfunctory and mechanical mannerneglecting the foundational principles of law and disregarding the plethora of judicial precedents laid down by this Hon’ble Court, which unequivocally affirm that the High Court possesses concurrent jurisdiction to entertain bail applications. Despite this settled legal position, the Hon’ble High Court abdicated its jurisdiction, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice by denying the petitioner the relief of regular bail," the plea states.The High Court’s decision to relegate the petitioner is all the more tenuous given that the High Court itself acknowledged the relevance of several judgments, both of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which support the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction, Kejriwal has contended.The plea also points out that there is no chance of the trial concluding in the near future and most of the co-accused have been granted bail.The plea has also highlighted the fact the Supreme Court had granted him interim bail in the money laundering case where conditions for grant of bail are more stringent. "The petitioner on the same allegations have already been granted interim bail by this Hon’ble Court and he also been granted regular bail by the Ld. Special Judge in PMLA matter where the conditions of bail are more stringent, therefore in the present case (CBI case) petitioner ought to be released forthwith," the plea argues..The Supreme Court had recently granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia, in connection with the same case.The Court allowed the plea after noting that the prolonged delay in trial had violated the right to speedy trial of Sisodia and right to speedy trial is a facet of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.It had taken critical note of the fact that High Courts and trial courts appeared to be "playing it safe" when they routinely deny bail in criminal cases instead of granting bail as the norm.