The Supreme Court will hear today Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's bail plea in the CBI case related to the liquor policy case.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan will hear the matter
Kejriwal was earlier granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in relation to the liquor policy. However, his incarceration continued since he was under custody in the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Follow this page for live updates.
Bench rises. To re-assemble after lunch break.
ASG taking the court through CBI's application seeking permission to arrest Kejriwal
ASG: In present case, there was order of court, permission I sought was acceded. court granted me the power. so, these conditions will not apply. S.41 is complied with.
ASG: If there is power to investigate, there is power to arrest. unless, taken away as in case of non-cognizable offense.
ASG: As far as arrest is concerned, kindly look at S.41. Arrest is part of investigation.
ASG switches to SLP challenging arrest
ASG: my arguments will be subject to the contention that this court is not the first court that should hear...
ASG: They can't go to High Court first and then to Sessions Court. Provision has to be interpreted in such a manner...there is no special circumstance...other than that he's an influential political personality.
ASG: Sub-section (3) of this section is missing under S.439
J Bhuyan: 439 deals with bail, there is a question of liberty. There can't be embargo. 397 is revision. They can file any number of bail applications
ASG: Then the sessions court will become redundant. Everybody will go to HC. HC would be flooded with matters. Purpose of S.439 would be frustrated. HC and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction as far as S.397 CrPC is concerned.
ASG: If impugned order is set aside, HC would be asked to hear on merits. HC has not decided on merits! The main bone of contention is HC has jurisdiction. HC has jurisdiction but cogent reasoning should be there for HC to exercise jurisdiction.