High Court Shouldn't Send Accused To Trial Court For Bail After Hearing At Length : Supreme Court In Arvind Kejriwal Case

While granting bail to Arvind Kejriwal in the CBI case arising out of the liquor policy 'scam', the Supreme Court today rejected the CBI's contention that Kejriwal ought to be relegated to the trial Court for relief. This view was taken as the High Court did not send Kejriwal back to the trial Court at the initial stage and seemingly heard the case on merits.

"If an accused approaches the High Court directly without first seeking relief from the Trial Court, it is generally appropriate for the High Court to redirect them to the Trial Court at the threshold. Nevertheless, if there are significant delays following notice, it may not be prudent to relegate the matter to the Trial Court at a later stage. Bail being closely tied to personal liberty, such claims should be adjudicated promptly on their merits, rather than oscillating between courts on mere procedural technicalities", said Justice Surya Kant in his judgment.

To recap, a bench of Justices Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered judgment today on Kejriwal's challenge to a Delhi High Court order of August 5, whereby his pleas challenging CBI arrest and seeking bail were dismissed with liberty to approach the trial court for bail.

After hearing the matter at length, the bench had reserved its orders on September 5. Today, it delivered two separate, concurring judgments.

Insofar as an issue of concurrent jurisdiction was raised by the CBI, arguing that all other co-accused who were granted bail by the top Court had approached the trial Court, but Kejriwal had not, Justice Kant noted that the High Court did not decide the issue at the preliminary stage and seemingly heard the parties on merits.

The judge also considered the CBI's stance that filing of the chargesheet before the trial Court constituted a change in circumstance, for which Kejriwal ought to first approach the trial Court. It was agreed that filing of the chargesheet constituted a change in circumstance, but it was not deemed appropriate that Kejriwal be relegated to the trial Court.

"It is true that generally the Trial Court should consider the prayer seeking bail once the chargesheet is filed... however, there can be no straitjacket formula which enumerates that every case concerning the consideration of bail should depend upon the filing of a chargesheet", said Justice Kant.

In similar vein, Justice Bhuyan, in his separate (concurring) opinion, expressed that the High Court could have relegated Kejriwal to the trial Court at the threshold itself, if it was inclined to do so. However, it issued notice in the matter, heard the parties at length, reserved judgment for a week, and then passed orders relegating him to trial Court.

"If indeed the High Court thought of remanding the appellant to the forum of the Court of Special Judge, it could have done so at the threshold itself. After issuing notice, after hearing the parties at length and after reserving the judgment for about a week, the above order was passed by the High Court", the judge opined.

Referring to the decisions in Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju v. State of A.P. and Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Justice Bhuyan further reiterated that merely because the High Court was approached by Kejriwal without approaching the trial court, it did not mean that the High Court could not have considered his bail application.

"asking the appellant or relegating the appellant to approach the trial court, then to the High Court and then to this Court for a fresh round of bail proceedings in the CBI case after he had already traversed the same route in the PMLA case would be nothing but a case of procedure triumphing the cause of justice", the judge remarked.

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 11023/2024 (and connected case)

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 694

Click here to read/download the judgment