New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has initiated a legal showdown by issuing a notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) concerning Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea linked to the excise policy case. The court initially entertained CBI’s objection that Kejriwal should have first approached a lower city court, but later decided to delve into the merits of his direct appeal to the high court during arguments.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued against the denial of bail, stating that Section 45 of the PMLA refers to offenses that are cognizable and non-bailable, and also lists the requirements for granting bail in cases of money laundering.
“Forget being violated, this can never be interpreted as a case where there can be any remotest allegation of the triple test being touched; can’t be a flight risk, can’t be non-cooperation, can’t be an instance of influencing witnesses,” he said. “Four people have been granted bail. Just because they say I’m a special class, I’m a VIP, so VIPs do not get bail that everyone else gets,” Singhvi said.
This is not a case of a proclaimed offender or a terrorist. Kejriwal was arrested two years after the CBI’s First Information Report (FIR) was registered in 2022 and interrogated for nine hours. “I’m pressing for some interim relief. Your lordship may consider the totality of this,” Singhvi pleaded.
The CBI, representing the investigative side, argued that Kejriwal should have first sought bail in the trial court before approaching the High Court directly, citing procedural norms and the need for hierarchy in judicial recourse.
Seeking the stance on Chief Minister Kejriwal’s bail plea filed in the agency corruption case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy, a single-judge bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna issued a notice to the Central agency demanding its response. The high court bench noted CBI’s contention that “the petitioner (Kejriwal) has approached the HC without filing any application for bail before the trial court.” The bench said, “This contention shall be considered at the time of arguments.”
The bench listed the matter for July 17. Arvind Kejriwal’s writ petition challenging his arrest by the central agency and the three-day CBI remand is also listed on the same date.
Appearing for the CBI, advocate DP Singh emphasized the significance of bail for Arvind Kejriwal. He mentioned that four chargesheets have been filed by the Central agency in the matter. Singh submitted that Kejriwal has filed a writ petition against the arrest by the agency, which is scheduled for hearing on July 17, and that the grounds in the CM’s bail plea and the plea against arrest “are almost identical.” “Meanwhile, if they file in a court which should be the first court, my lady will have sufficient material, some findings,” he added.
When asked by the high court’s bench if Kejriwal had filed a bail plea in the CBI matter before the trial court, Singh replied that he had not. While he is not saying the Delhi chief minister cannot file a bail plea before the high court, each case has different circumstances. The bench orally said to Singhvi, “These are two (ED and CBI) independent cases. You will also have the benefit of the session judge first hearing you; maybe you succeed there…I’m not on the capacity of this court or the competence of the court (to hear the bail plea).”
In response to this, Singhvi submitted that the competence of the court had been interpreted in various Supreme Court and high court judgments in such cases. “My lord is already dealing with CBI’s larger issue. Which court could better better appreciate the holistic picture than my lords,” Singhvi said.
.
.
