Supreme Court Grants Bail To AAP Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the CBI Case

Today (September 13, 2024), the Supreme Court (SC) bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Chief Arvind Kejriwal in a case registered against him by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy Scam. Both judges delivered separate judgments. Earlier on September 05, the Supreme Court of India reserved the verdict after hearing the matter. While pronouncing the judgment today, Justice Kant said, “In our considered view, although the procedure for the Appellant’s arrest meets the requisite criteria for legality and compliance, continued incarceration for an extended period pending trial would infringe upon established legal principles and the Appellant’s right to liberty, traceable to Article 21 of our Constitution. The Appellant has been granted interim bail by this Court in the ED matter on 10.05.2024 and 12.07.2024, arising from the same set of facts. Additionally, several co-accused in both the CBI and ED matters have also been granted bail by the Trial Court, the High Court, and this Court in separate proceedings.” 

On the other hand, Justice Bhuyan questioned the CBI’s arrest. He said, “...CBI case was registered on 17.08.2022. Till the arrest of the appellant by the ED on 21.03.2024, CBI did not feel the necessity to arrest the appellant though it had interrogated him about a year back on 16.04.2023. It appears that only after the learned Special Judge granted regular bail to the appellant in the ED case on 20.06.2024 (which was stayed by the   High   Court   on   21.06.2024   on   oral   mentioning) that CBI became active and sought for custody of the appellant which was granted by the learned Special Judge on 26.06.2024.” He added, “Thus, it is evident that CBI did not feel the need and necessity to arrest the appellant from 17.08.2022 till 26.06.2024 i.e. for over 22 months. It was only after the learned Special Judge granted regular bail to the appellant in the ED case that the CBI activated its machinery and took the appellant into custody. Such action on the part of the CBI raises a serious question mark on the timing of the arrest; rather on the arrest itself. For 22 months, CBI does not arrest the appellant but after the learned Special Judge grants regular bail to the appellant in the ED case, CBI seeks his custody. In the circumstances, a view may be taken that such an arrest by the CBI was perhaps only to frustrate the bail granted to the appellant in the ED case.”

Moreover, Justice Bhuyan observed, “...it would be a travesty of justice to keep the appellant in further detention in the CBI case, more so, when he has already been granted bail on the same set of allegations under the more stringent provisions of PMLA.” He further said, “When the CBI did not feel the necessity to arrest the appellant for 22 long months, I fail to understand the great hurry and urgency on the part of the CBI to arrest the appellant when he was on the cusp of release in the ED case.” Justice Bhuyan opined, “I am of the unhesitant view that the belated arrest of the appellant by the CBI is unjustified and the continued incarceration of the appellant in the CBI case that followed such arrest has become untenable." Apart from this, Justice Bhuyan, in his judgment, reminded the CBI of its duty to ensure fair investigations. He said, “CBI is a premier investigating agency. It's in public interest that CBI must not only be above board but must also be seen to be so. Every effort must be made to remove any perception that investigation is not carried out fairly and that the arrest was made in a high-handed and biased manner. In a functional democracy governed by the rule of law, perception matters. Like Caeser's wife, an investigating agency must be above board. Not so long ago this Court had castigated the CBI comparing it to a caged parrot. It is imperative that the CBI dispels the notion of being a caged parrot, rather the perception should be that of an uncaged parrot.”

Therefore, considering all the aspects, the SC bench granted bail to Arvind Kejriwal subject to the following terms and conditions:

• “The Appellant is directed to be released on bail in connection with FIR registered by the CBI at PS CBI, ACB, upon furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 /- with two sureties of such like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
• The Appellant shall not make any public comments on the merits of the CBI case, it being sub judice before the Trial Court. This condition is necessitated to dissuade a recent tendency of building a self-serving narrative on public platforms;
• However, this shall not preclude the Appellant from raising all his contentions before the Trial Court;
• The terms and conditions imposed by a coordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.05.2024 and 12.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal…, titled Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, are imposed mutatis mutandis in the present case;
• The Appellant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, unless granted exemption; and
• The Appellant shall fully cooperate with the Trial Court for expeditious conclusion of the trial proceedings.”