Read Time: 05 minutes
Senior Advocate Singhvi characterized Kejriwal's arrest memorandum as noteworthy, noting that it was merely a single paragraph long, and proceeded to read its contents. He highlighted that the conditions stipulated in Section 41 of the PMLA were addressed by the CBI in an extensive sentence, demonstrating minimal application of thought.
On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court adjourned Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI, rescheduling the hearing to July 17. The court also granted the CBI, represented by Advocate DP Singh, additional time to file their rejoinder.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna presided over Kejriwal's plea, which contested the trial court's decision to remand him to CBI custody for three days and sought his release from the case.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Arvind Kejriwal, stated that this was the first issuance of notice and questioned the necessity of the arrest, noting that the CBI FIR dated back to August 2022, while Kejriwal was summoned in April 2023 and questioned for nine hours. He argued that no action had been taken since then, making the urgency or necessity of the arrest questionable. Singhvi emphasized that an arrest must be accompanied by a reason, reflected in the arrest memo.
The court inquired whether Kejriwal's legal team had filed a bail plea. Sr Adv Singhvi responded that while they were entitled to file it and would do so, they had not yet filed it.
In the last week of June, the Rouse Avenue Court had authorized the CBI to question Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal regarding the defunct liquor excise policy. He was scheduled to appear before Special Judge (PC Act) Amitabh Rawat.
Notably, the Rouse Avenue Court had criticized the ED for bias and failure to directly link Kejriwal to proceeds of crime in the excise policy case, which involved corruption and money laundering allegations concerning Delhi's 2021-22 excise policy, subsequently scrapped.
However, the Delhi High Court overturned this decision, which granted bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the defunct liquor excise policy case. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain opined that the trial court's assertion of 'malafide intentions on the part of the ED' was incorrect.
Recently, Sanjay Singh accused the CBI of misleading the Supreme Court, alleging that Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's arrest was a tactic to keep political opponents in jail. Singh claimed the ED and CBI were tools of the Central government. Singh further alleged that whenever Kejriwal was granted bail, the ED intervened, and the Centre orchestrated his arrest by the CBI before he could secure bail from the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v Central Bureau Of Investigation (W.P.(CRL)-1939/2024, CRL.M.A. 18890/2024, CRL.M.A. 18891/2024)
Please Login or Register
