The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal in connection with a case filed by Central Bureau of Investigation in the excise policy case.
The top court pronounced the verdict in the petitions filed by Kejriwal challenging his arrest and seeking bail in the case registered by the CBI over the alleged excise policy case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan had heard the matter and reserved verdict on September 5. Both the judges delivered separate judgments.
While granting him bail in the case, the Supreme court said Kejriwal satisfies the triple condition for the grant of bail and we order accordingly.
Both the judges were unanimous while granting bail to Kejriwal considering the fact that the chargesheet had been filed in the case and that the trial is unlikely to be completed in the near future. Kejriwal cannot visit the office of the Chief Minister and Delhi Secretariat and also cannot comment on the case once he walks out.
Here is what the judges said in the order.
1-Thus, there is no impediment in terms of arresting a person already in custody for the purposes of investigation, whether for the same offence or for an altogether different offence. The Appellant’s arrest by the CBI was thus entirely permissible, in light of the Trial Court’s order dated 25.06.2024.
3- The evolution of bail jurisprudence in India underscores that the ‘issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process
4 - Appellant will not make any public comment on merits of the case. Conditions imposed in ED matter shall apply in this case also.
5 -In so far arrest of the appellant by the CBI is concerned, it raises more questions than it seeks to answer. For 22 months, the CBI does not arrest the appellant but after the learned Special Judge grants regular bail to the appellant in the ED case, the 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.
6-Power to arrest is one thing but the need to arrest is altogether a different thing. Just because an investigation agency has the power to arrest, it does not necessarily mean that it should arrest such a person.
7-As far as grounds of arrest are concerned, these would not satisfy necessity of arrest. CBI can't justify arrest and continue detention citing evasive replies. Accused can't be compelled to make inculpatory statement.
8-Travesty of justice to keep appellant in custody on these grounds, especially as he has been granted bail in more stringent PMLA. I fail to understand the great urgency on part of CBI to arrest appellant when he was on cusp of release in ED case.
9- Bail is the rule and jail an exception. Courts must ensure that pre-trial process does not become punishment.
10- Belated arrest of appellant unjustified, Justice Bhuyan said.
CBI is a premier investigating agency of the country. It is 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 was 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 Caesar's wife, an investigating agency must be above board. Not long ago, this court has castigated the CBI comparing it to a caged parrot. It is imperative that CBI dispels the notion of it being a caged parrot. Rather, the perception should be that of an uncaged parrot, Justice Bhuyan said.
