NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal in a CBI case linked to the alleged excise policy scam, ensuring his release from jail as he had already been given bail in a money laundering case pursued by ED.
The order in the corruption case came as a big relief to AAP ahead of Haryana assembly elections. All its senior members accused in the case are now out on bail.
Applying the salutary principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said that the requisite triple conditions for grant of bail – that the CM has no criminal antecedents, is not a flight risk, and poses no threat of tampering with witnesses or evidence – were satisfied.
The court, though, spelled out certain bail conditions: Kejriwal shall not visit the CM’s office and the Delhi secretariat; he shall not sign official files unless required and necessary for obtaining clearance/approval of LG; has to be present in the trial court on each date of hearing unless granted exemption; and can’t make any public comment on the merits of this case. He has to furnish bail bond for Rs 10 lakh with two sureties of like amount.
Both the judges were unanimous on granting bail to the CM, but penned separate judgments, diverging sharply on the merits of his arrest. Justice Kant, who examined the procedure adopted by CBI in arresting the CM while he was in judicial custody in the money laundering matter, held that the arrest was valid and there were no procedural lapses.
On the other hand, Justice Bhuyan looked into the “necessity and timing of the arrest” and came to the conclusion that the arrest was unjustified and its timing “quite suspect”, while questioning CBI’s motive in arresting him almost two years after the case had been lodged.
Underscoring that personal liberty was sacrosanct and bail was closely tied to liberty, the bench said bail pleas should be adjudicated promptly on their merit, rather than oscillating between courts on mere procedural technicalities. It said trial courts and high courts must remain adequately alert to the need to protect personal liberty, which it said is a cherished right under the Constitution.
S C had earlier granted bail to AAP netas Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh and its former communications in-charge Vijay Nair in the liquor policy case. The bench agreed with the submission of senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi that Kejriwal be granted bail like other accused in the case.
“In our considered view, although the procedure for the appellant’s arrest meets the requisite criteria for legality and compliance, continued incarceration for an extended period pending trial would infringe upon established legal principles and his right to liberty, traceable to Article 21 of our Constitution. The appellant has been granted interim bail by this court in the ED matter on May 10 and July 12 arising from the same set of facts. Additionally, several co-accused in both the CBI and ED matters have also been granted bail by the trial court, the HC and this court in separate proceedings,” Justice Kant said. Questioning CBI for arresting Kejriwal immediately after he was granted bail in the money laundering case, Justice Bhuyan said, “In so far as arrest of the appellant by the CBI is concerned, it raises more questions than it seeks to answer. In the circumstances, a view may be taken that such an arrest by the CBI was perhaps only to frustrate the bail granted to the appellant in the ED case.”
He further said, “It is evident that CBI did not feel the need and necessity to arrest him from August 17, 2022 (when the case was registered) till June 26, 2024, ie for over 22 months. It was only after the special judge granted regular bail to the appellant in the ED case that the CBI activated its machinery and took the appellant into custody. Such action on the part of the CBI raises a serious question mark on the timing of the arrest; rather on the arrest itself.”
The bench said the trial in the case was unlikely to conclude in the near future as 224 witnesses remained to be examined and there was extensive documentation, both physical and digital. It said all evidence and material relevant to the case was already in CBI’s possession, negating the likelihood of tampering by Kejriwal and there was no apprehension of his fleeing the country. Justice Kant said, “The courts would invariably bend towards ‘liberty’ with a flexible approach towards an undertrial, save and except when the release of such person is likely to shatter societal aspirations, derail the trial or deface the very criminal justice system which is integral to rule of law.”
The order in the corruption case came as a big relief to AAP ahead of Haryana assembly elections. All its senior members accused in the case are now out on bail.
Applying the salutary principle of “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan said that the requisite triple conditions for grant of bail – that the CM has no criminal antecedents, is not a flight risk, and poses no threat of tampering with witnesses or evidence – were satisfied.
The court, though, spelled out certain bail conditions: Kejriwal shall not visit the CM’s office and the Delhi secretariat; he shall not sign official files unless required and necessary for obtaining clearance/approval of LG; has to be present in the trial court on each date of hearing unless granted exemption; and can’t make any public comment on the merits of this case. He has to furnish bail bond for Rs 10 lakh with two sureties of like amount.
Both the judges were unanimous on granting bail to the CM, but penned separate judgments, diverging sharply on the merits of his arrest. Justice Kant, who examined the procedure adopted by CBI in arresting the CM while he was in judicial custody in the money laundering matter, held that the arrest was valid and there were no procedural lapses.
On the other hand, Justice Bhuyan looked into the “necessity and timing of the arrest” and came to the conclusion that the arrest was unjustified and its timing “quite suspect”, while questioning CBI’s motive in arresting him almost two years after the case had been lodged.
Underscoring that personal liberty was sacrosanct and bail was closely tied to liberty, the bench said bail pleas should be adjudicated promptly on their merit, rather than oscillating between courts on mere procedural technicalities. It said trial courts and high courts must remain adequately alert to the need to protect personal liberty, which it said is a cherished right under the Constitution.
S C had earlier granted bail to AAP netas Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh and its former communications in-charge Vijay Nair in the liquor policy case. The bench agreed with the submission of senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi that Kejriwal be granted bail like other accused in the case.
“In our considered view, although the procedure for the appellant’s arrest meets the requisite criteria for legality and compliance, continued incarceration for an extended period pending trial would infringe upon established legal principles and his right to liberty, traceable to Article 21 of our Constitution. The appellant has been granted interim bail by this court in the ED matter on May 10 and July 12 arising from the same set of facts. Additionally, several co-accused in both the CBI and ED matters have also been granted bail by the trial court, the HC and this court in separate proceedings,” Justice Kant said. Questioning CBI for arresting Kejriwal immediately after he was granted bail in the money laundering case, Justice Bhuyan said, “In so far as arrest of the appellant by the CBI is concerned, it raises more questions than it seeks to answer. In the circumstances, a view may be taken that such an arrest by the CBI was perhaps only to frustrate the bail granted to the appellant in the ED case.”
He further said, “It is evident that CBI did not feel the need and necessity to arrest him from August 17, 2022 (when the case was registered) till June 26, 2024, ie for over 22 months. It was only after the special judge granted regular bail to the appellant in the ED case that the CBI activated its machinery and took the appellant into custody. Such action on the part of the CBI raises a serious question mark on the timing of the arrest; rather on the arrest itself.”
The bench said the trial in the case was unlikely to conclude in the near future as 224 witnesses remained to be examined and there was extensive documentation, both physical and digital. It said all evidence and material relevant to the case was already in CBI’s possession, negating the likelihood of tampering by Kejriwal and there was no apprehension of his fleeing the country. Justice Kant said, “The courts would invariably bend towards ‘liberty’ with a flexible approach towards an undertrial, save and except when the release of such person is likely to shatter societal aspirations, derail the trial or deface the very criminal justice system which is integral to rule of law.”