Arvind Kejriwal's CBI Arrest 'Insurance Arrest' Against Release In ED Case, Singhvi Argues; Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the petition filed by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the corruption case in relation to the liquor policy case.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also reserved order on Kejriwal's interim bail plea.

Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, N Hariharan and Vikram Chaudhari represented Kejriwal. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) DP Singh was the CBI's counsel.

Singhvi contended that Kejriwal's arrest by the CBI was an 'insurance arrest', as an afterthought to the interim bail granted by the Supreme Court on Friday in relation to the ED case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Singhvi emphasised that despite the Apex Court's interim bail, Kejriwal is “back to square one because of the insurance arrest.” “Because those who want it, by hook or by crook, he is behind bars,” he said.

Singhvi further stated that Kejriwal has three release order in his favour and therefore suggested that the CBI's arrest was an insurance arrest.

He pointed out that CBI's plea before the Trial Court to arrest Kejriwal did not specify any provisions under which they sought to make the arrest, nor was any prior notice given to Kejriwal.

Referring to the Trial Court's order, Singhvi stated that the application of mind is only in one paragraph, without affording Kejriwal the opportunity to be heard or providing any prior notice.

He argued that the CBI possessed the same evidence both during their interrogation of Kejriwal in the case and at the time of his arrest.

He asserted that Kejriwal passes the triple test to afford him bail i.e., there is no risk of him tampering with evidence, he is not a flight risk and he will cooperate with the investigation. He further stated that Kejriwal's blood sugar level has declined.

CBI's counsel, DP Singh stated that the use of term 'insurance arrest' was not justified. He argued that there have been multiple petitions and applications before the court and till date there were no observations regarding any violations by the CBI.

On the issue of not providing notice to Kejriwal, Singh contended that Delhi Prison Rules mandate seeking court permission to interrogate someone in custody of court. He stated that CBI does not have to provide Kejriwal a prior notice.

He stated “On June 24, I examine him but don't arrest him…If there was an insurance arrest, I could have exercised my right to arrest in terms of Section 41 itself. But I don't do that. We come back and assess his statement. And then we decide we need to arrest him.”

Singh further argued that the CBI has the right to decide the timing of calling the accused. He pointed out that Kejriwal's role was not evident at first as the excise policy fell under the purview of the excise minister. However, whenever his involvement became relevant, he was called by the CBI.

He stated that bail of the primary people involved in the case, Amandeep Dhall, Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha, were dismissed by the High Court.

Singh stated the Kejriwal is trying to derail CBI's investigation by placing the blame on others during interrogation.

Singh contended that for grant of bail, the Court would have to look into the chargesheet. He stated that the CBI is in final stages of preparing chargesheet against Kejriwal.

Singh argued it would be rational if the bail is first argued before trial court. He stated “That court should be the first court which should have rational reasons for grant or denial of bail. I am not arguing on bail because I'll rather await your lordships decision on whether arrest was legal or not.”

While reserving order on Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest and interim bail, Justice Krishna fixed the hearing for Chief Minister's regular bail plea on July 29.

Kejriwal has directly approached the High Court for seeking bail without approaching the trial court.

He is in judicial custody in the corruption and money laundering cases related to the alleged scam.

Recently, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Kejriwal in the money laundering case, while referring his petition challenging the arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to a larger bench.

The Chief Minister was remanded to CBI custody for three days on June 26 by vacation judge Amitabh Rawat, observing that the arrest, at this stage, cannot be said to be illegal. However, the judge had said that while the arrest is not illegal, CBI should not be over zealous.

Later, on June 29, vacation judge Sunena Sharma remanded Kejriwal to judicial custody as CBI did not ask for his further remand at this stage.

The probe agency examined the Chief Minister in Tihar jail where he is lodged in judicial custody in relation to the money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Kejriwal's statement was recorded. This was hours after the Delhi High Court stayed the bail granted to the Chief Minister in the PMLA case.

After court's permission, CBI examined Kejriwal in court on June 26 and then formally arrested him in the matter.

Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21. In May, he was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court till June 01 in view of general elections. He surrendered on June 2.

Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI