The Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict on the bail application of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, related to the corruption case arising from the alleged excise policy scam. The decision came after detailed arguments presented by both the defense and the prosecution on July 29.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna listened to the arguments from Kejriwal’s counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) representative, advocate D P Singh. The CBI has labeled Kejriwal as the “sutradhaar” (mastermind) of the scam, arguing that his release could potentially influence witnesses and disrupt the ongoing investigation.
The CBI’s stance was bolstered by the recent filing of a charge sheet against Kejriwal and five others, including AAP MLA Durgesh Pathak, in the trial court earlier that day. According to the CBI’s counsel, the investigation necessitated Kejriwal’s arrest, post which the charge sheet was promptly filed within a month.
On the other side, Singhvi argued that Kejriwal’s arrest was more of an “insurance arrest” intended to keep him detained rather than based on solid evidence. He asserted that there was no direct evidence linking the AAP chief to the allegations, with the accusations largely grounded in presumptions.
The backdrop of this legal battle includes Kejriwal’s previous arrest by the CBI on June 26, directly from Tihar Jail, where he was already in judicial custody related to a connected money laundering case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Although the trial court granted him bail in the money laundering case on June 20, this was subsequently stayed by the high court.
Further complicating matters, the Supreme Court granted Kejriwal interim bail in the money laundering case on July 12.
Also Read
The controversy centers around the Delhi government’s excise policy, which was scrapped in 2022 following the Delhi lieutenant governor’s directive for a CBI probe. The investigation alleges significant irregularities and corruption in the policy’s formulation and execution, accusing officials of extending undue favors to license holders.
