Delhi High Court seeks CBI response to Arvind Kejriwal plea against arrest in Excise policy case

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 challenging his arrest by the central agency in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. .Justice Neena Bansal Krishna asked the CBI to file its response and posted the matter for further hearing on July 17. .The CBI arrested Kejriwal on June 26, while he was in judicial custody in connection with a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).Kejriwal was recently granted bail by the trial court in the ED case on June 20 though the same was later stayed by the Delhi High Court on June 25.Following this, he was arrested by the CBI on June 26 and remanded to CBI custody till June 29. On June 29, he was sent to judicial custody till July 12 after the CBI did not seek extension of custody..In his plea before the High Court, Kejriwal has argued that his arrest was in clear violation of the statutory mandate prescribed under Section 41 and 60A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). "That in the present case despite the offence being punishable of 7 years, requirement of Section 41A & 60A notice was not adhered by the Investigating officer and hence the arrest of the Petitioner without the compliance of the requirement as mandated under law is illegal and non-est in law," the plea stated. He has, therefore, sought directions to release him from custody and to quash the entire CBI proceedings against him. .Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, submitted that CBI had registered the FIR in the case in August 2022 but the arrest was happening after nearly two years."He (Kejriwal) was summoned in April 2023 and questioned for 9 hours. From April till now nothing is done. On 2022 FIR, he is arrested now. There can't be a necessity, urgency of arrest," Singhvi said.He also pointed out that Kejriwal is already under judicial custody in the ED case and hence, there could be no fear of him tampering with evidence or witnesses or posing any danger or flight risk. "The arrest memo must reflect some reasons. Reasons like terrorist or that he will interfere does not even arise in his case. He was already in judicial custody," it was contended.