The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Monday filed a chargesheet against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and several others in connection with the ongoing excise policy case in the Rouse Avenue Court.
The case has drawn considerable attention, and recently, the Delhi High Court reserved its order on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI. The court also considered his application for interim bail during the hearing. CBI lawyer DP Singh argued that the material on record justifies the need for Kejriwal’s arrest, highlighting that the investigation is still ongoing and not subject to re-evaluation of evidence at this stage. Singh pointed out that Kejriwal's evasive responses during his interrogation on June 25, 2024, made custodial interrogation necessary to uncover the truth and facilitate the investigation.
The CBI asserted that it holds the authority to interrogate and arrest accused individuals, provided that legal requirements are met. They referenced Section 41-A CrPC, in conjunction with Section 41-A (3), to argue that there is no blanket ban on arrest in cases involving reasonable suspicion of a cognizable offence.
The law on the subject mandates that the investigating officer in such cases should be satisfied with the necessity of arrest under the conditions noted in the sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Section 41 (1) (b) (ii) and should record reasons for the same, the CBI told the Delhi High Court.
In a counter-argument, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, contended that the arrest was unnecessary and indicative of undue harassment.
"I have three release orders in my savour, those three orders are under much much much more stringent provisions. The Apex Court has recently decided to grant him bail indefinitely. My client also got a bail order in his favour in the ED case from the trial court, which was later stayed by the Delhi High Court. The CBI FIR is August 17, 2022. I am not named in that. In April, I was summoned under Sec. 160 CrPC as a witness," Singhvi said.
Singhvi further submitted that Kejriwal's arrest by the CBI was unnecessary.
"The dates of the case cry out for themselves. The trial court gave me regular bail under PMLA on June 20 and after four days, the CBI took the order to question me in judicial custody and arrested me on June 26. I never got a copy of the application. No notice was given, and the order was passed. Even I was not heard," he said.
Singhvi further argued that the timing and manner of Kejriwal’s arrest were inappropriate, particularly in light of the fact that the CBI had already interrogated him for nearly three hours on June 25. Singhvi also drew parallels with other high-profile cases, such as that of Imran Khan, to argue that the arrest was part of a broader pattern of harassment rather than a justified legal action.
The Delhi Chief Minister has characterized his arrest as a form of persecution, alleging that it is driven by malafide and extraneous considerations. He has approached the Delhi High Court seeking regular bail and challenging the legality of his arrest and the routine remand orders issued by the Trial Court.
The High Court had previously issued notice and scheduled further hearings on July 17 to address these issues.
