NEW DELHI: After listening to for a complete day, Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea within the corruption case of the Delhi excise coverage rip-off. Kejriwal advised the court docket that he was not a flight threat, not a hardened felony or risk to society, making it a match case for bail however CBI alleged that he would affect witnesses if allowed to return out of jail.
Although SC has repeatedly mentioned that listening to in bail pleas needs to be temporary and mustn’t go on and on, the listening to on this case went on for nearly 4 and a half hours, which was additionally identified by the bench whereas asking the attorneys to be exact.
Match case for bail: Kejriwal’s counsel
Urgent for bail, Kejriwal’s counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, mentioned all of the accused within the case had been granted bail in each CBI and ED circumstances and advised the bench the CM’s arrest by CBI was an “insurance coverage arrest” to make sure that he remained in jail. He advised the court docket that CBI didn’t do something in opposition to Kejriwal for 2 years after lodging an FIR in 2022 and he was arrested solely on June 26, when two beneficial orders had been handed in opposition to him within the ED case.
Singhvi mentioned the case handed the triple take a look at for grant of bail and was a match case to grant aid. “Triple take a look at is predicated on the presumption of innocence. The final word object is to safe presence throughout trial. You shouldn’t be a flight threat. A person who’s a constitutional functionary can’t be a flight threat. There’s additionally now no scope of tampering with proof and the proof within the case is documentary in nature which has already been collected,” he mentioned.
Looking for parity with different accused within the case – Manish Sisodia, Okay Kavitha, Sanjay Singh and Vijay Nair – who’ve been granted bail, Singhvi mentioned Kejriwal’s arrest was itself unlawful as a discover below Part 41A of the Code of Legal Process was not served earlier than it.
Countering Singhvi, further solicitor normal S V Raju advised the court docket that there was a excessive chance of Kejriwal influencing witnesses as a lot of them turned hostile after he was granted interim bail through the normal elections.
He additionally mentioned Kejriwal needs to be requested to maneuver the trial court docket for bail and to problem his arrest as he had instantly moved Delhi HC. He mentioned the legislation needs to be equal for all and the politician shouldn’t be given particular therapy.
The ASG mentioned the co-accused, who received bail from SC, had first approached the trial court docket however, not like them, Kejriwal by no means approached the trial court docket for bail. He mentioned the trial court docket had taken cognisance of the chargesheet, which meant there was a prima facie case in opposition to the CM, and if he was granted bail, it might be demoralising for the HC. Taking exception to his submission, the bench requested him to not make such a press release.
Raju additional mentioned Part 41A CrPC was not relevant on this case as Kejriwal was in judicial custody when CBI sought his custody, which was allowed by the trial court docket.
