Prime Minister Kejriwal is not allowed to comment on the case publicly, says SC

New Delhi, September 13 (IANS): To a great relief for Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Supreme Court on Friday granted him bail in the corruption case surrounding the alleged alcohol scandal, but attached some conditions.

However, Justice Surya Kant, presiding over a two-judge bench, dismissed his plea challenging the legality of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) arrest in the alleged liquor scandal and subsequent remand.

Justice Kant held that the allegation that the CBI had not followed procedural rules for arrest was “baseless” and that there were no procedural lapses in Kejriwal’s arrest.

“We have pointed out that the FIR (of the CBI) was registered in August 2022 and four supplementary chargesheets were filed. In addition, 17 accused have been named, over 200 persons have been identified as witnesses and voluminous documents, both physical and digital, have been submitted. These factors suggest that the completion of the trial is unlikely in the near future,” Justice Kant said, adding that “prolonged detention of an accused pending trial amounts to unjustified deprivation of liberty.”

“The appellant shall be released on bail in connection with the CBI FIR subject to furnishing of a surety bond in the sum of Rs 1 million with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court,” the top court ordered.

It also asked Prime Minister Kejriwal not to make “any public comments” on the pending CBI case.

“The conditions imposed by the Coordinating Tribunal in the ED matter shall apply in this case also. The appellant (Kejriwal) shall be present before the Tribunal on every day of hearing unless he is granted any exception. He shall fully cooperate with the Tribunal to ensure expeditious completion of the trial proceedings,” the bench headed by Justice Kant directed.

The other judge, Ujjal Bhuyan, in his concurring opinion, agreed to release Kejriwal on bail but raised several questions about the necessity and timing of the CBI’s arrest.

“The arrest by the CBI raises more questions than it seeks to answer. The CBI case was registered in August 2022. The CBI saw no need to arrest the accused (Kejriwal) despite having interrogated him a year ago. It appears that the CBI took action and sought custody of the accused only after the court in the ED case granted him regular bail on June 20, which was later stayed by the Delhi High Court on an oral mention by the ED,” Justice Bhuyan said.

Justice Bhuyan rebuked the CBI, adding that the CBI did not consider the arrest of Kejriwal necessary for 22 months and only after the court granted regular bail in the ED case did it “activate its machinery” and take the AAP chief into custody.

Justice Bhuyan also said, “Such an arrest raises serious questions as to the timing of the arrest by the CBI, not the arrest itself. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that such an arrest by the CBI may have been made only to prevent the release of the appellant (Kejriwal) on bail in the ED case.”

Justice Bhuyan said that while he had “serious reservations” about the bail conditions barring Chief Minister Kejriwal from entering the Delhi Secretariat or signing any official documents, he had refrained from expressing any further views “at this stage for reasons of judicial discipline and propriety as these conditions have already been imposed in the ED case”.

In fact, the two judges agreed that Prime Minister Kejriwal was entitled to bail.

Last week, the top court reserved its decision after hearing oral arguments of senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) president, and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing on behalf of the CBI.

During the hearing, Singhvi claimed that the CBI did not arrest CM Kejriwal for two years but made a “hasty security arrest” to prevent his release in the money laundering case. The CBI arrested Kejriwal for “his lack of cooperation and evasive answers” but there are several Supreme Court judgments which say that cooperation with the investigation should not mean that the accused has to incriminate himself and confess to the offences he is charged with, he said. Singhvi added that CM Kejriwal, a constitutional functionary who holds the office of Delhi Chief Minister, has fulfilled the triple criteria for granting bail. “He is not a flight risk, he will appear to answer the questions of the investigating agency and he cannot tamper with documents running into hundreds of thousands of pages and digital evidence after two years,” he added.

On the other hand, the Central agency feared that CM Kejriwal’s release would make many witnesses “hostile” and urged the Supreme Court not to grant him bail. ASG Raju said that many AAP candidates in the Goa Legislative Assembly elections had given their statements to the Central agency only after CM Kejriwal’s arrest. “They (the witnesses) will turn hostile if Their Lordships release Kejriwal on bail,” he argued. He argued that CM Kejriwal’s bail application should be remanded to the trial court and he should not have applied for bail in the Delhi High Court at the first instance. The ASG submitted that an arrest is part of an investigation and normally an investigating officer does not need a court’s permission to make an arrest. “But in the present case, there was a court order granting the authority (to make the arrest),” he said. He added that an accused person arrested pursuant to a court order cannot plead violation of fundamental rights.

Recently, the Supreme Court granted bail petitions of senior AAP politician and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, BRS politician K. Kavitha and former AAP Communications Officer Vijay Nair in the excise policy case.

The Supreme Court on July 12 ordered CM Kejriwal’s interim release in connection with the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). However, he was not allowed to leave jail after his arrest by the CBI.