Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, reserved its order in Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s writ petition challenging his arrest by the CBI. The CBI arrested Kejriwal on June 24, 2024, following the High Court’s decision to overturn the bail granted by the Trial Court. 

The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reserved the order to be pronounced within a week while listing the matter seeking regular bail for July 29th, 2024. 

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, characterized the arrest as ‘An insurance arrest’, noting that, ‘The CBI did not want to, did not intend to, and did not have any basis for arrest’.

Further, Singhvi cited multiple release orders in Kejriwal’s favor, including those under stringent provisions of the PMLA, where the Supreme Court had granted his release after fulfilling a triple test. He highlighted the CBI's actions as a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the procedures were not followed correctly. He remarked that ‘He (Kejriwal) is a chief minister, not a terrorist’. 

Senior Advocate Singhvi concluded by criticizing the CBI for not providing necessary documents to the vacation judge and reiterated that the process and time spent in custody were punitive. 

The CBI, represented by Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh, detailed that the reasons for the arrest were submitted to the court. He highlighted that Kejriwal when questioned about the privatization idea, denied responsibility and attempted to shift the blame. As the Chief Minister and a significant figure in the case, Kejriwal's statements raised concerns about potential interference in the investigation.

Referencing the Supreme Court’s grant of bail to Kejriwal during the 2024 elections, SPP Singh argued ‘The release of Kejriwal during elections… was allowed because of the prevalence of justice in our legal system allowing him to participate in the democratic process’. 

Referring to the Goa elections, SPP Singh noted that Kejriwal's immediate travel to Goa post-elections indicated potential misuse of funds, which could influence the investigation's integrity if he remained free. The timing of the arrest, Singh argued, was crucial to avoid undue influence on the investigation process. SPP Singh, contended ‘I (investigating agencies) took one year because I need to be sure, to collect relevant material. I have to be sure, he (Kejriwal) is the sitting chief minister’. 

Lastly, SPP Singh emphasized that the agencies complied with the Arnesh Kumar case guidelines, ensuring that the arrest was not illegal. He assured that the decision involved multiple officers within the agency, demonstrating procedural diligence. 

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v CBI