Delhi HC upholds Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest by CBI

The Delhi high court on Monday turned down a plea for the release of chief minister Arvind Kejriwal from prison in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case in connection with the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.
“It cannot be said that the arrest was without any justiciable reasons or illegal,” a bench of justice Neena Bansal Krishna said in the verdict.
The judge also disposed of the CM’s bail plea and granted him liberty to approach the city court with a fresh petition.
The AAP chief had approached the high court in July challenging his arrest and remand by the CBI and seeking bail, claiming that his arrest was “illegal” since it was in contravention of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court’s ruling in ‘Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar’ and section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates the investigating officer to issue notice to the person accused of committing an offense before making an arrest without warrant. In the Arnesh Kumar ruling, the Supreme Court had formulated guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrests and ensure that the same are made only when mandatory.
The petition went on to add that the Delhi court failed to satisfy itself as to how the AAP supremo’s arrest was necessitated, and erred in law in appreciating that the CBI took him into custody by failing to abide by the conditions laid down under section 41 of the CrPC. The said provision allows police to make arrests with a warrant or permission from a magistrate in cases where the police fear it is necessary to prevent a person from committing a further offense or for proper investigation.
The chief minister, represented by senior advocate AM Singhvi, asserted that his arrest by the CBI was an after thought insurance and a “safeguard”, aimed at preventing his release in the separate money laundering case related to the same matter. The probe agency had no new “new evidence” or “material” justifying the arrest in judicial custody, almost a year after he was summoned as a witness by the CBI in April 2023.
The senior lawyer argued that the probe agency arrested his client on two “non existing grounds”, i.e., non-cooperation in investigation and Magunta Reddy’s statement. “When they came to interrogate me and didn’t arrest me, they had the same material which they had to arrest me a day later. The material is six months old, I am already in ED custody,” Singhvi said.
He highlighted that there were three favorable orders for his client’s release under a more stringent provision, i.e., the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Against this backdrop, Singhvi contended that the CBI’s action to move the trial court seeking permission to interrogate and arrest the AAP chief, was only because the probe agency was “worried” as the wind had started blowing in Kejriwal’s favor in the ED case and wanted to ensure by “hook or by crook” that the former does not walk out of jail. He also argued that because of the CBI arrest, his client was back to square one despite Supreme Court’s July 12 order granting him interim bail in the ED case after acknowledging that he had spent over 90 days in incarceration.
“This term insurance arrest coined by him is unjustified. The order of a stay on his bail in the ED case was to be pronounced on June 25. Only after this order came did we arrest him. If it was an insurance arrest, I could have arrested him before the HC order. It would have raised eyebrows, but I only arrested him when this court gave a complete stay on his bail. None knew about the Supreme Court’s order (July 12 order of interim release). It was not a way as they say,” Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) DP Singh, representing the CBI, submitted.
Singh argued that the probe agency took the CM into custody in June only after it received a sanction in April 2024 under the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the leader.
“He is a public servant. The Prevention of Corruption Act requires permissions to investigate under Section 17. To say that in January, I had the statement of Magunta Reddy; in April I got the sanction. There is a mechanism at the CBI. An investigating officer (IO) alone cannot take a call. We took three months to collect all the material. It’s not as if we did nothing. Whatever I needed to do was only after April 23, not before it. To say why I took one year to get this sanction… He is the CM of Delhi,” Singh asserted. The law officer added that the agency even at the time of arrest had “probable reasons” and sufficient material to prove that Kejriwal had the capability of influencing and derailing the investigation. “CrPC permits arrest for the purpose of investigation,” Singh argued.
Kejriwal has been in custody since March 21 following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate, apart from a 21-day interim bail in May granted by the top court for campaigning during the Lok Sabha elections. On July 12, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in the ED case, acknowledging that he had spent over 90 days in incarceration. Still, he continued to remain in custody due to the separate CBI case.
The case against Kejriwal stems from allegations of irregularities in Delhi excise policy of 2021-22, which the CBI began probing following a recommendation by Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor in July 2022.
Kejriwal was the third AAP leader arrested in this connection after former deputy CM Manish Sisodia in February 2023, and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, who was later granted bail by the top court in April, six months after being in custody.