Arvind Kejriwal Bail News: The petition of Arvind Kejriwal, who is in jail on charges of Delhi liquor policy scam, was heard in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday. The petition of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging the arrest and remand order by the CBI was heard in the court on Wednesday. The Delhi High Court today heard the bail plea of Arvind Kejriwal, who is in jail in the liquor policy scam, despite the Muharram holiday. During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was representing Kejriwal, not only criticized the arrest made by the CBI but also requested to release him on bail in the case.
During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, on behalf of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, gave many arguments in the court regarding Kejriwal’s bail. On the other hand, the CBI also gave many arguments in favor of Kejriwal not getting bail. The CBI filed an affidavit in the Delhi High Court opposing Arvind Kejriwal’s bail. Here we are presenting the arguments presented by both the sides in a sequential manner, which states that if Arvind Kejriwal gets bail then why should he get it and if he does not get bail then why should he not get it-
1- CBI, while seeking dismissal of Arvind’s plea, said that the petitioner has attempted to mislead the court by misusing the complexities of law to stop further progress in the case.
2- The petitioner approached the court using section 439 of the CrPC for granting bail without approaching the lower court. For granting regular bail, he should have approached the special judge i.e. the sessions court.
3- CBI said that investigation, including arrest, is the sole domain of the investigating agency.
4- Whether the accused has answered the questions satisfactorily or is evasive, it is entirely in the domain of the investigating agency.
5- The attempt by the petitioner to sensationalise the matter is unfortunate.
6- When all other circumstances of the case were investigated, only then did the CBI seek custody of the petitioner.
7- Further, on 23rd April itself, permission was granted under Section 17-A of the PC Act to investigate the role of the petitioner.
8- The investigation against the National Convenor of Aam Aadmi Party was necessary to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. Since he was in judicial custody, his presence could not be ensured without the permission of the court.
9- The petitioner is not entitled to equality considering his role in the criminal conspiracy in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, particularly when any or all decisions of the Government and the party have been taken only in pursuance thereof.
10- Arvind Kejriwal, in collusion with other accused persons, deliberately changed and manipulated the Excise Policy 2021-22 and thereby increased the profit margin of wholesalers from 5% to 12% without any reason, thereby causing undue windfall profits to the wholesalers.
11- Illegal bribe of Rs 100 crore was received from South Group to meet the election expenses of Aam Aadmi Party in Goa.
12- Arvind Kejriwal’s strong influence and dominance does not give him equal rights with such co-accused.
13- To be complete, various influential co-accused in the case are still in custody, including accused Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha.
14- The petitioner is accused of committing a serious economic offence which should be considered as a class apart.
15- While personal liberty is paramount, it is not absolute but is subject to reasonable restrictions, including those of the State and public interest.
Tags: Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi High Court, Delhi liquor scam
FIRST PUBLISHED : July 17, 2024, 15:53 IST