Delhi Excise Policy Scam: Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Arvind Kejriwal's Bail Plea in CBI Case
On September 05, 2024 (Yesterday), the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing a bail plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Chief and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a case registered by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam. The bench constituting Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surya Kant reserved its verdict after hearing the learned counsels representing Kejriwal and the CBI. During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju representing the CBI submitted that the grant of bail to Arvind Kejriwal would amount to demoralizing the High Court. Justice Bhuyan disagreed with this submission and said, “Do not say all that. Do not say that. It cannot be submission of any lawyer.” Both the parties in the case were at loggerheads over whether the trial court should first hear the bail matter. ASG Raju said, “He approached the High Court without going to the sessions court. This is my preliminary objection. On merits, trial court could have seen it first. High Court was made to see merits and it can only be in exceptional cases. In ordinary cases, sessions court has to be approached first.”
On the other hand, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi who appeared for Kejriwal said, “Is it a fair plea to say (go to trial court bail)? Had it not been argued on merits including on Section 41 and Section 41A fully? Before trial court also, it was argued during remand. You cannot consider sending me back there. Arguments were looked into during remand and affirmed against me. It is not fair to raise that argument now by then at this stage, there is huge delay involved since it has been heard on merits. Clear error on the face of it. I will not use the word perverse but serious error.” He also relied on the top court’s ‘Snakes and Ladders’ phrase in the Manish Sisodia judgment. The quote from the judgment, “Now, relegating the appellant to again approach the trial court and thereafter the High Court and only thereafter this Court, in our view, would be making him play a game of “Snake and Ladder”. The trial court and the High Court have already taken a view and in our view relegating the appellant again to the trial court and the High Court would be an empty formality. In a matter pertaining to the life and liberty of a citizen which is one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by the Constitution, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post.”
After a lengthy hearing in the matter that lasted for a whole day, the two-judge bench of the SC reserved its verdict.
