Home > Recent Judgements > SC Grants Bail To Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal In High-Profile CBI Case
Sept 18, 2024
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
On September 16, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the ongoing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) concerning the Delhi liquor policy case.
SUPREME COURT’S DECISION
On September 13, 2024, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Two Judges granted bail to Arvind Kejriwal. The bail was granted on a bond of Rs 10 lakh and two sureties. The Supreme Court granted Kejriwal bail on conditions which bars him from making any public comments on the case, requiring his attendance at trial hearings, restricting his visits to his office to prevent evidence tampering and limiting his official duties with approval from the Lieutenant Governor.
JUDGEMENT MATRIX
In his judgment, Justice Surya Kant confirmed the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest under Section 41 of the CrPC but emphasized that prolonged detention violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He noted that trial delays and the interim bail granted in the ED case made continued detention unwarranted. Consequently, he imposed similar bail conditions as of ED case, including a ₹10 lakh bond and restrictions on Kejriwal’s official duties.
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 41 OF THE CRPC
Justice Kant’s judgment emphasized that the CBI’s arrest of Kejriwal met the criteria under Section 41 of the CrPC, allowing arrest without a warrant under certain conditions. The court found no procedural irregularities or breaches of Section 41A, which applies to arrests when the accused is already complying with a notice of appearance.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Justice Bhuyan questioned the necessity and timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, noting that the CBI had not acted for over 22 months but did so immediately after Kejriwal was granted bail in the ED case. He expressed concern that the timing of the arrest appeared strategically planned to disrupt the ongoing ED proceedings. He also questioned the fairness and procedural integrity of the CBI’s investigation, particularly in light of the bail already granted under the stricter Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
PROLONGED DETENTION AND ARTICLE 21
The court highlighted that prolonged detention infringes on Kejriwal’s right to personal liberty under Article 21, reflecting a judicial effort to balance the rights of the accused with the need for effective investigation. This approach aims to prevent unjust deprivation of liberty while ensuring fair and swift legal proceedings.
IMPLICATIONS FOR INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICES
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of investigative agencies maintaining fair practices and avoiding actions that could be seen as biased or strategically motivated. The judgment stresses that arrests must be based on solid grounds and should not be used as a means of procedural manipulation.
IMPACT ON LEGAL PRECEDENTS
This case contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on balancing investigative needs with the rights of the accused. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Arvind Kejriwal emphasizes the protection of personal liberty under Article 21, scrutinizes the timing of high-profile arrests, and sets a precedent for imposing specific bail conditions to maintain the integrity of investigations. It reinforces the need for investigative agencies to adhere to procedural requirements and is likely to influence future high-profile cases by highlighting the judiciary’s role in balancing individual rights with the interests of justice.
KEY INSIGHTS
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kejriwal case critically examines the legality and timing of high-profile arrests. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the balance between the right to liberty and the need for judicial oversight in such cases. The conditions imposed by the court reflect a cautious approach to ensure the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the rights of the accused.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
