The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 5) reserved its verdict in the bail plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the money laundering case registered by the CBI in the Delhi excise policy case.
Kejriwal’s bail plea was heard by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
During the hearing, counsels representing Kejriwal and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were at loggerheads over whether Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief’s bail plea should be first heard by trial court.
Kejriwal’s plea was rejected by the Delhi High Court on August 5 and asked him to approach trial court for bail. The Delhi CM then instantly moved the Supreme Court with his appeal
SC reserves order on Kejriwal bail plea: What CBI said?
During the hearing on Thursday, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for CBI, said the matter should be first heard by the trial court.
“He approached the High Court without going to the sessions court. This is my preliminary objection. On merits, trial court could have seen it first. High Court was made to see merits and it can only be in exceptional cases. In ordinary cases, sessions court has to be approached first,” the ASG contended.
Raju further told the court that bypassing the trial court can only be allowed in exceptional circumstances and the only “exceptional” circumstance in this case is that Kejriwal is the Chief Minister.
Kejriwal’s response
Appearing for Kejriwal, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, said that the grounds raised in the present plea as regards the mandate on police office to issue notice to accused under Section 41A of CrPC, were argued before the trial court during remand and was rejected. Hence, it would not be fair to send the AAP leader back to the trial court to argue the same issue again.
“Is it a fair plea to say (go to trial court bail)? Had it not been argued on merits including on Section 41 and Section 41A fully? Before trial court also, it was argued during remand. You cannot consider sending me back there. Arguments were looked into during remand and affirmed against me. It is not fair to raise that argument now by then at this stage, huge delay involved since it has been heard on merits. Clear error on the face of it. I will not use the word perverse but serious error,” Singhvi said.
Manish Sisodia’s bail order referred in Kejriwal’s plea hearing
The Kejriwal’s counsel further highlighted the SC’s judgment in Delhi former deputy CM Manish Sisodia case in which the apex court, while granting bail, had said that it would be unfair to send him back to trial court for bail since it would amount to playing a game of snake and ladder.
“(On) this sending back, the Supreme Court has now used a very felicitous phrase in the Sisodia judgment – snakes and ladders,” Singhvi said.
ASG Raju then interjected and said, “Sisodia went to trial court once. Here how many times has he? It is not fair to look at one para like that without facts. My lords cannot be the first instance. There is a hierarchy.”
“They want the ladder to start all over again,” Singhvi quipped.
He further said that Kejriwal satisfies the triple test for bail and the trial in the case is unlikely to conclude anytime soon.
“Multiple chargesheets filed. Prolonged incarceration cannot be there, is the triple test satisfied? Yes it is. In Manish Sisodia, the Court held that in this particular case of excise policy, trial is impossible to finish,” Singhvi contended.
After the hearing that lasted through the day, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment.
On July 12, the Supreme Court had granted interim bail to Kejriwal in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case related to the Delhi excise policy. However, he had to remain in jail in the CBI case.
Kejriwal had filed two separate petitions before the apex court – (i) seeking bail, and (ii) challenging the legality of his arrest by the CBI in the Delhi excise policy case.
The CBI took Kejriwal into custody on June 26. The Delhi CM argued that the CBI arrested him when he was on the “cusp of release” on money laundering charges in the same case.
He further said that the move by the CBI was an “insurance arrest” designed to keep him behind the bars.
The investigating agency, in its response, countered that his arrest was necessary due to his “evasive and non-cooperative” attitude to questions about his alleged role in the case.
“It was necessary since he was to be confronted with the evidence on record,” the CBI had said in an affidavit.
Link to article –
Supreme Court reserves order on Kejriwal’s bail plea in Delhi excise policy case: Know what happened
