Read Time: 03 minutes
Senior Advocate Singhvi argued that the CBI addressed the conditions outlined in Section 41 of the PMLA in a single sentence, providing minimal elaboration on how the bail application did not meet the requirements, thereby indicating a lack of substantial consideration.
The Delhi High Court, on Friday, issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation in Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest in the now defunct liquor excise policy case. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna further listed the matter for July 17.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, argued that no allegation related to the triple test had surfaced. He emphasized that four individuals had already secured bail in this case and questioned the justification for Kejriwal's continued detention. Senior Advocate Singhvi mentioned that he received bail in the ED case from the trial court and was arrested two years later. He sought interim relief, asserting that he was neither a proclaimed offender nor a terrorist.
Advocate DP Singh, representing the CBI, challenged the arrest and stated that the trial court should have been the first to hear the bail plea.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Singhvi contended that the Supreme Court had settled the law, indicating no involvement of Section 45 PMLA in this matter. He urged the court to hear the bail plea promptly.
The court acknowledged its concurrent jurisdiction but stressed the importance of following procedural propriety.
Accordingly, the court directed CBI to file a reply within a week and listed the matter for July 17.
Please Login or Register
