NEW DELHI: After hearing for a whole day, Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea in the corruption case of the Delhi excise policy scam. Kejriwal told the court that he was not a flight risk, not a hardened criminal or threat to society, making it a fit case for bail but CBI alleged that he would influence witnesses if allowed to come out of jail.
Though SC has repeatedly said that hearing in bail pleas should be brief and should not go on and on, the hearing in this case went on for almost four and a half hours, which was also pointed out by the bench while asking the lawyers to be precise.
Fit case for bail: Kejriwal’s counsel
Pressing for bail, Kejriwal’s counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, said all the accused in the case had been granted bail in both CBI and ED cases and told the bench the CM’s arrest by CBI was an “insurance arrest” to ensure that he remained in prison. He told the court that CBI did not do anything against Kejriwal for two years after lodging an FIR in 2022 and he was arrested only on June 26, when two favourable orders were passed against him in the ED case.
Singhvi said the case passed the triple test for grant of bail and was a fit case to grant relief. “Triple test is based on the presumption of innocence. The ultimate object is to secure presence during trial. You should not be a flight risk. A man who is a constitutional functionary cannot be a flight risk. There is also now no scope of tampering with evidence and the evidence in the case is documentary in nature which has already been collected,” he said.
Seeking parity with other accused in the case – Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, Sanjay Singh and Vijay Nair – who have been granted bail, Singhvi said Kejriwal’s arrest was itself illegal as a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not served before it.
Countering Singhvi, additional solicitor general S V Raju told the court that there was a high probability of Kejriwal influencing witnesses as many of them turned hostile after he was granted interim bail during the general elections.
He also said Kejriwal should be asked to move the trial court for bail and to challenge his arrest as he had directly moved Delhi HC. He said the law should be equal for all and the politician should not be given special treatment.
The ASG said the co-accused, who got bail from SC, had first approached the trial court but, unlike them, Kejriwal never approached the trial court for bail. He said the trial court had taken cognisance of the chargesheet, which meant there was a prima facie case against the CM, and if he was granted bail, it would be demoralising for the HC. Taking exception to his submission, the bench asked him not to make such a statement.
Raju further said Section 41A CrPC was not applicable in this case as Kejriwal was in judicial custody when CBI sought his custody, which was allowed by the trial court.