Arvind kejriwal suffered for over 90 days: Supreme Court grants interim bail to Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal in excise policy case.

Kejriwal however will not be released as he is under CBI arrest and in remand; Supreme Court refers to larger Bench the question whether accused can invoke ‘need and necessity of arrest’ as a separate ground to quash his arrest

On July 12, the Supreme Court granted Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal temporary release in connection with money laundering charges related to the Delhi excise policy case. However, the court requested that Kejriwal consider whether he should resign from office in light of the accusations brought against him.]

Judges Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta’s bench emphasized that Mr. Kejriwal holds a position of influence and constitutional significance.

According to Justice Khanna, the court cannot order an elected official to resign from their position as a “functional” chief minister.

Justice Khanna stated that it would be preferable if Mr. Kejriwal took the choice personally.

The Supreme Court has granted Mr. Kejriwal temporary bail twice now. The first occurred on May 10, when the Aam Aadmi Party’s national convenor was given permission to run for office in the Lok Sabha elections. On June 2, Mr. Kejriwal turned himself in.

Mr. Kejriwal was granted interim bail, according to Justice Khanna. His freedom and right to life were “sacrosanct.” He has spent more than ninety days behind bars.

 

The Chief Minister would not, however, be freed from detention. On June 25, the CBI detained him separately in relation to the excise policy case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The judgment on Friday further referred to a larger Bench questions raised by Mr. Kejriwal on the need and necessity to arrest him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

While noting that a need for interrogation cannot be the sole ground for arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA, Justice Khanna said the larger Bench ought to examine and lay down specific parameters for arrest under the PMLA.

The court, in this regard, noted that arrest, currently under the PMLA, was initiated on the “subjective opinion” of the investigating officer unlike the grant of statutory bail under Section 45 of the Act which involved discretion of a court of law.

 

One of the questions referred to the larger Bench include whether an accused could raise the “need and necessity of arrest” as a separate ground to quash the arrest.

 

The judgment came on a petition filed by Mr. Kejriwal against his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the PMLA on March 21.

 

The Bench had reserved the petition for judgment on May 21 while allowing Mr. Kejriwal to separately approach the trial for regular bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.

Subsequently, a Special Court granted Mr. Kejriwal statutory bail under Section 45 of the PMLA on June 20. Bail under PMLA is applied for in the Special Court under Section 45 of the Act. An accused seeking bail has to satisfy the stringent twin conditions that he is prima facie innocent and is not likely to commit an offence in the future.

 

But the Delhi High Court stayed the bail on June 25.

 

The ED has alleged Mr. Kejriwal’s involvement in the channeling of ₹45 crore in “kickbacks” out of a ₹ 100 crore in “bribe” to AAP coffers to campaign for the Goa Assembly elections in 2022.

 

The agency has claimed the kickbacks were sent via hawala operators and Mr. Kejriwal was the “kingpin” behind the scam.

 

Senior advocate AM Singhvi, for Mr. Kejriwal, has countered these allegations, saying the ED had nothing to show that any money came to his client or was used in the Goa election campaign.

 

He submitted that Mr. Kejriwal’s arrest came a year-and-half after the ED registered a case in August 2023. It had no new evidence against Mr. Kejriwal, except “zero-weight” statements recorded from accused-turned-approvers till July last year.

 

Mr. Singhvi had asked why the ED had waited from July 2023 till March 2024 to arrest Mr. Kejriwal.

 

The senior lawyer had accused the ED of suppressing evidence against Mr. Kejriwal when his rights of life and liberty were at stake. Eom