Arvind Kejriwal moves Supreme Court for bail, cites Manish Sisodia order

Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court on Monday, seeking release from jail in connection with the Delhi excise policy case, in which he is under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) -- two days after the top court granted bail to former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in the related probed by CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

In his plea, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief challenged his arrest and subsequent remand orders, while also pressing for bail. Kejriwal assailed the Delhi high court’s August 5 judgment, which ruled that his arrest was neither illegal nor without justifiable grounds because CBI presented “evidently enough evidence” to warrant his detention and remand.

ALSO READ- Manish Sisodia may return to CM Kejriwal's Delhi cabinet

He relied heavily on the Sisodia verdict, in which the court held that the former deputy CM’s long incarceration of 17 months and his continued detention in a case where there was no hope of trial ending anytime soon impinged on his fundamental right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The AAP chief’s petition argued that the grounds on which the court found it appropriate to release Sisodia on bail should equally apply to him.

The plea was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud on Monday morning for an urgent hearing. Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi and CU Singh requested a listing of Kejriwal’s plea on Tuesday. Responding, the CJI asked the lawyers to send an email request, as per the procedure followed in the top court.

Kejriwal’s petition highlighted the Supreme Court’s observations in the Sisodia case that prolonged incarceration without trial could amount to a violation of fundamental rights, particularly when the investigation is largely complete and the accused has deep roots in society, reducing the risk of absconding. Kejriwal, through his plea, argued that he meets these criteria, much like Sisodia, and should therefore be granted bail on similar grounds.

The petition gains significance in light of the assembly elections in Delhi early next year. As the incumbent CM and the party’s most prominent leader, Kejriwal’s presence is crucial for the AAP’s campaign strategy. With Kejriwal at the helm, the AAP has consistently positioned itself as a champion of Delhi’s governance, focussing on issues such as education, health care, and affordable water and power. His continued detention, on the other hand, could severely impact the party’s ability to rally its base, manage the election narrative, and counter opposition attacks effectively.

Kejriwal has been in custody since March 21 following his arrest by ED, apart from a 21-day interim bail in May granted by the top court for Lok Sabha election campaigning. On July 12, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Kejriwal in the ED case, acknowledging that he had spent over 90 days in incarceration. Still, he continued to remain in custody due to his arrest by CBI on June 26 in the same matter.

The case against the CM stems from allegations of irregularities in Delhi’s now-scrapped excise policy of 2021-22, which CBI began probing following a recommendation by Delhi’s lieutenant governor in July 2022. Kejriwal was the third AAP leader arrested in this connection. Sisodia was incarcerated since February 2023 before he was released on August 9, and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh was granted bail by the top court in April, after six months of custody.

ALSO READ- ‘Arvind Kejriwal will be out of jail in 24 hours, if…’, Manish Sisodia tells AAP workers

In his petition before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal disputed the findings recorded in the high court judgment while asserting that his arrest and remand orders issued by a Delhi court on June 26 and June 29 respectively were illegal and passed in grave contravention of previous Supreme Court judgments which required the investigating agency to issue a prior notice and furnish concrete reasons to justify an arrest.

A mere non-cooperation cannot form a statutory ground to arrest a person, said Kejriwal’s petition, adding that CBI did not point towards any new evidence or material in the arrest memo or the remand note to justify his arrest.

He also claimed that his arrest by CBI was an attempt to scuttle and prevent his release from custody in the money laundering case registered by ED, in which he was granted bail by the Delhi court on June 20.

The Delhi court order, which cited lack of direct evidence, was halted by the Delhi high court on June 21 -- in less than 24 hours. On June 25, a vacation bench in the Delhi high court stayed the bail order saying that the order was perverse and was passed without appreciating the material submitted by ED. The Supreme Court, however, granted interim bail to Kejriwal on July 12, noting that he has already suffered incarceration for over 90 days and that the issue involves right to life and liberty of an individual. On the day, the court also referred the issues relating to the legal scope of incorporating “need and necessity to arrest” and the “doctrine of proportionality” into ED cases to a larger bench.

ALSO READ- Vote for AAP to build ‘new Haryana’: Sunita Kejriwal

Seeking bail in the CBI case, Kejriwal’s petition in the Supreme Court underscored that the CM was being subjected to gross persecution and harassment for wholly malafide and extraneous considerations. The plea went on to add that the material based on which the AAP chief was arrested was already on record and his arrest 1 year 10 months after the registration of the FIR smacks of “glaring malafide.” It also stressed that there was absolutely nothing on record to show as to how, why and under what circumstances CBI’s perception changed from April 16, 2023, the day when Kejriwal was called as a witness, to his arrest in June 2024.

The Delhi high court on August 5 upheld Kejriwal’s June 26 arrest. It found no misuse of power by the investigating officer, noting that his detention was carried out with the proper written orders from the special judge, in accordance with legal procedures. The high court’s ruling also affirmed the trial court’s June 29 order remanding Kejriwal to judicial custody, emphasising that CBI had provided valid reasons for seeking further remand, which the special judge had carefully considered, including Kejriwal’s evasive replies and “non-truthfulness” in disclosing facts during his time in the agency’s custody.