The Supreme Court on Thursday began hearing Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s pleas seeking bail and challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with his alleged involvement in the excise policy scam.
The case is being heard by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi is representing Kejriwal, while Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju is representing the CBI.
During the proceedings, Singhvi noted that this is the “only case” in which bail has been granted twice to Kejriwal under the stringent PMLA provisions, in addition to regular bail.
The senior counsel further emphasised that Kejriwal poses no threat in the PMLA case. “He is not a threat in the PMLA case. Currently, there is only the triple test remaining; the next step is to obtain regular bail from the trial court under Section 45 of the PMLA. This order was stayed by the High Court through an oral mention. Effectively, there are three orders in play,” Singhvi said.
Kejriwal’s files two separate petitions
In his special leave petition, Kejriwal has filed two separate petitions challenging the denial of bail and his arrest by the CBI on June 26 in the case. He has also contested the August 5 order of the Delhi High Court, which upheld his arrest..
The top court had, on August 23, permitted the CBI to file its counter affidavit and granted Kejriwal two days to submit a rejoinder.
Previously, a trial court had granted bail to Kejriwal on June 20 after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21 in the money laundering case. However, this bail order was subsequently stayed by the Delhi High Court.
Additionally, the Supreme Court had ordered, on July 12, that Kejriwal be released on interim bail in connection with the case filed by the ED. However, he remained in custody due to his arrest by the CBI.
On August 5, the Delhi High Court had upheld the arrest of the chief minister as legal, stating that there was no malice in the CBI’s actions. The court noted that the CBI had demonstrated how the AAP supremo could potentially influence witnesses, who only found the courage to testify after his arrest.
