(Image source from: Hindustantimes.com)
The Supreme Court is reviewing Delhi's Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's requests for bail and to challenge his arrest in the CBI case related to the city's now-scrapped liquor policy. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan is hearing the case. The top court had earlier granted interim bail to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case against him, but he remains in jail in the CBI case. If the Supreme Court provides him relief, the Delhi Chief Minister will be released from prison after over five months. The CBI arrested Mr. Kejriwal on June 26, and the Delhi High Court upheld the arrest as legal, stating that the CBI could establish that the AAP leader could influence witnesses. Representing Mr. Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi said this is an unprecedented matter, and the Delhi Chief Minister has received relief twice under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Mr. Singhvi also stated that the CBI had done an "insurance arrest" and that three court orders are in Mr. Kejriwal's favor.
The lawyer argued that Arvind Kejriwal should not be kept in jail. He said the Supreme Court needs to consider whether Kejriwal is a flight risk, if he will tamper with evidence, and if he will influence witnesses. The lawyer mentioned that the only basis for Kejriwal's arrest was his lack of cooperation, but previous judgments have stated that an accused cannot be expected to incriminate themselves. The lawyer said Kejriwal is a constitutional figure and cannot be considered a flight risk, there is no risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the criteria for denying bail have not been met. He also pointed out that Kejriwal had been found suitable for release twice, even under stricter legal standards, and that the grounds for his recent arrest were vague and lacked substantial material.
The judge expressed concern about the lengthy hearing for a bail matter, questioning whether ordinary individuals receive as much time. The CBI's lawyer requested an equal amount of time as the defense lawyer, Mr. Singhvi, who agreed to wrap up by noon. Mr. Singhvi argued that the "triple test" for bail was fully satisfied, as multiple co-accused had been released, and he addressed the cases of Vijay Nair, Manish Sisodia, and Sanjay Singh. He emphasized that prolonged incarceration cannot be justified, and the triple test is satisfied, as evidenced by previous court rulings, including the case of Manish Sisodia, where the court noted the impossibility of completing the trial.
