In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that High Courts should not send an accused back to the Trial Court for bail after having already heard the matter in detail. The judgment came in the case of Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal Nos. 3816 and 3817 of 2024, where the appellant, Arvind Kejriwal, had challenged his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and sought regular bail.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The Supreme Court’s ruling came after it found that the Delhi High Court, despite an extensive hearing, relegated the appellant, Arvind Kejriwal, to the Trial Court to seek bail.
Background of the Case
Arvind Kejriwal, a three-time Chief Minister of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the National Convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party, was implicated in a case concerning alleged irregularities and corruption in the framing and implementation of the Excise Policy for the year 2021-2022. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR (No. RC0032022A0053) on August 17, 2022, under Sections 120B and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Although Kejriwal’s name was not initially mentioned in the FIR, subsequent investigations pointed to his alleged involvement.
On March 21, 2024, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) arrested Kejriwal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on May 10, 2024, which expired on June 1, 2024. After surrendering to jail authorities, Kejriwal was again arrested by the CBI on June 26, 2024, in connection with the alleged irregularities in the Excise Policy.
Legal Issues Involved
The case raised several key legal questions:
1. Legality of the Arrest: Kejriwal’s counsel, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that his client’s arrest was illegal, alleging non-compliance with Sections 41(1) and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Singhvi contended that the CBI had not provided valid reasons for the arrest, violating procedural safeguards. He highlighted that the provisions under Section 41(2), which pertain to non-cognizable offenses, were erroneously applied to a case involving cognizable offenses.
2. Grant of Bail: Singhvi further argued that Kejriwal deserved to be granted bail given that he had already been granted interim and regular bail in a related Enforcement Directorate (ED) case by the Supreme Court, where the conditions are more stringent. He contended that his client met the ‘triple test’ for bail – having no criminal antecedents, posing no flight risk, and having no potential to tamper with evidence.
3. Relegation to Trial Court: The High Court’s decision to ask Kejriwal to approach the Trial Court for bail after hearing the case extensively was challenged. Singhvi argued that this move would lead to unnecessary delays and amounted to a denial of justice.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment, observed that the High Court should not relegate an accused to the Trial Court for bail after hearing the matter at length. It stated that the High Court had the concurrent jurisdiction to decide on bail matters under Section 439 of the CrPC, and asking the accused to approach the Trial Court was unnecessary after a detailed hearing.
The Court observed, “The High Court’s jurisdiction is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously, particularly when the matter has been heard at length. Relegating the accused back to the Trial Court is akin to taking the applicant back to square one, which results in unnecessary delays and travesty of justice.”
The Supreme Court also examined the procedural compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC regarding the issuance of notice and concluded that since Kejriwal was already in judicial custody, the requirement of notice was not necessary. The Court held that the CBI had complied with the required procedures under the CrPC for arresting an accused who is already in judicial custody, and thus, there was no illegality in the arrest.
The bench further clarified that the references to Section 41(2) of the CrPC in the High Court’s judgment appeared to be typographical errors. Both parties agreed that Section 41(2), which pertains to non-cognizable offenses, was not applicable in the present case.
Observations and Quotes from the Judgment
The Supreme Court made several important observations in its judgment:
– “The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety, and burden on the public treasury. A developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process.”
– “The prolonged incarceration of an accused person, pending trial, amounts to an unjust deprivation of personal liberty. Courts should lean towards granting bail unless the release is likely to shatter societal aspirations or derail the trial.”
– “High Courts should exercise their jurisdiction judiciously and avoid relegating an accused to the Trial Court for bail after an extensive hearing. Such actions lead to delays and constitute a denial of justice.”
Counsels and Parties Involved
– Appellant (Arvind Kejriwal): Represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, along with his legal team.
– Respondent (Central Bureau of Investigation): Represented by Mr. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General of India.
Case Citation and Number
– Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal Nos. 3816 and 3817 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 11023 and 10991 of 2024).
