Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, on Wednesday, argued before the Delhi High Court that the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal by the Central Bureau of Investigation was malicious in law. The said submission was made in Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI in June 2024. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna presided over the matter. 

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued, ‘it is rare of the rarest thing wherein where a person is arrested one year after all investigation is completed’. 

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Arvind Kejriwal, vehemently argued against the legality of the arrest, invoking several legal precedents and guidelines. Reading from the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines (2014 8 SCC 273), Singhvi emphasized that an arrest should not be based solely on a police officer's satisfaction that the accused has committed an offence. He stressed that the police must be further satisfied that the arrest is necessary to prevent further offences.

‘Supreme Court endeavors to ensure that police officers do not arrest unnecessarily, however, Supreme Court’s endeavor was shattered into pieces by the actions of Investigating agencies opted in this case’, Senior Advocate Singhvi further argued. 

Senior Advocate Singhvi questioned the applicability of these guidelines to Kejriwal's case, suggesting that the judge should have referred to the relevant sections. He demanded the reasons for Kejriwal's arrest beyond the claim that he provided evasive answers. Singhvi asserted that under Section 41 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Kejriwal could have been released in the presence of counsel and the accused if the protocols had been correctly applied. He lamented that the Supreme Court's efforts to ensure that police officers do not make unnecessary arrests were disregarded in this instance, resulting in a violation of the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines.

Senior Advocate Singhvi argued that the arrest was a safeguard to prevent Kejriwal from walking free, referring to the guidelines held in the case of Arnesh Kumar wherein it was opined that all police officers should be given a checklist detailing the reasons for arrest, warning that failure to comply would amount to contempt of court. He maintained that the production warrant issued in Kejriwal's case was intended for inquiry, not investigation, and asserted that such an order should not have been passed without legal representation.

Senior Advocate Singhvi highlighted inconsistencies in the timing of evidence brought to light by the CBI, noting that a statement by Magunta Reddy, recorded in January, was only revealed in June. He pointed out that while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) did not arrest Kejriwal until March, the CBI arrested him in June based on evidence collected in January. Senior Advocate Singhvi argued that the material collected in January could have been used to interrogate Kejriwal while he was already in ED custody, suggesting that the authorities waited until he was granted bail to arrest him.

‘I have got bail twice by the Supreme Court, no until something earth-shattering happens, I should receive bail’, Senior Advocate Singhvi emphasized.

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v CBI (WP Crl. 1939/2024)