Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2024: Landmark Case

In Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 arose from the arrest of the former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy scam. The leader of AAP Kejriwal, challenged the legality of his arrest, alleged procedural violations and political vendetta and also sought for bail. The case addressed important questions regarding the interpretation of arrest procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code and the scope of judicial discretion in granting bail. Explore other important Landmark Judgements.

Download Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation PDF

Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 Historical Context and Facts

The case at hand revolves around the arrest of Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal by the CBI in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy scam. Kejriwal challenged the legality of his arrest and the denial of bail by the Delhi High Court. He argued that the arrest was politically motivated and violated legal procedures. The following are the brief facts of Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation:

CBI Arrest and Charges

On 26th June 2024, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi CM at the time, in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy scam. He was booked under:

• Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 477A of Indian Penal Code

Timing and Context of Arrest

The arrest came just a day after the Delhi High Court stayed the order of the Trial Court and granted former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal bail in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Notably, the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear an appeal of Kejriwal against that stay order on the same day he was arrested.

Delhi High Court on Arvind Kejriwal Bail

After the arrest, the former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal filed an application for bail and challenged the arrest in the Delhi High Court. On 5th August 2024, the High Court denied bail and upheld the arrest. The Court stated that it was made under the order of the Magistrate in compliance with Section 41(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Court ordered Arvind Kejriwal to approach the Trial Court for bail.

Arguments by Arvind Kejriwal

Arvind Kejriwal challenged both the validity of his arrest and the denial of bail. The Counsel of former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal was led by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi. He put forth various arguments regarding the motives behind the arrest and highlighting procedural lapses by the investigating agencies.

Allegation of Political Vendetta

The counsel of Kejriwal,  Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi defined the arrest as an “insurance arrest”. He implied it was an intentional attempt by the Union Government to keep Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in jail despite court orders in his favour. He pointed out that the First Information Report was filed in August 2022, the earliest in the liquor scam did not mention Kejriwal.

Improper Application of CrPC Provisions

The Learned Counsel Singhvi contended that the Delhi High Court misapplied Section 41(2) of Criminal Procedure Code which only pertains to non-cognizable offences whereas the charges against Arvind Kejriwal were cognizable. He stated that Kejriwal was actually arrested under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) and that the Delhi High Court wrongly invoked Section 41(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to justify the arrest.

Violation of Section 41A: Arrest without Notice

The Counsel of Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal Mr. Singhvi contended that the arrest infringed Section 41A of Criminal Procedure Code which requires a notice of appearance before an arrest is made. He alleged that:

• No notice was served to Arvind Kejriwal
• The police did not record valid reasons for converting the notice into an arrest as required under Section 41A(3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

Triple Test for Bail

Mr. Singhvi contended that Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal had:

• No criminal record
• No flight risk
• No likelihood of tampering with witnesses or evidence

He also highlighted that Kejriwal had already been granted favourable bail orders under the stringent PMLA and that the trial in the case would take a long time to conclude.

Response and Objections of CBI

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) raised various points in its defense of the arrest and the ongoing investigation. The CBI argued for the necessity of continued detention of former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and objected to his bail request.

Need to Uncover a Larger Conspiracy

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju who appeared for the CBI, defended the arrest. He stated it was essential to uncover a larger conspiracy. He maintained that Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal held an influential position and could interfere with witnesses if released.

Compliance with Arrest Procedure

The Counsel also contended that the CBI had followed proper procedures under Sections 41(1)(b)(ii) and 41A of Criminal Procedure Code. He argued that no notice was needed under Section 41A since Kejriwal was already in custody and issuing a notice would have been a “meaningless formality.”

Forum for Bail and Chargesheet Strategy

The CBI Counsel also criticised Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal for approaching the Supreme Court directly for bail. He alleged that he was seeking special treatment. He also claimed that Kejriwal applied for bail before the chargesheet was filed to avoid the evidentiary weight it would bring.

Supreme Court on Interim Arvind Kejriwal Bail

After hearing arguments the Supreme Court on 5th September 2024 reserved its judgment. On 13th September 2024, a Division Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan granted interim bail. The judges unanimously agreed on granting bail but they were divided on the legality of the arrest, leaving that issue open for further consideration.

The following issues were addressed in Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation -

1. Validity of former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal Arrest: The Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal v Central Bureau of Investigation examined whether the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was valid under the law?
2. Eligibility for Bail: The Apex Court analysed whether Arvind Kejriwal irrespective of the legality of his arrest was entitled to be granted bail?
3. Relegation to Trial Court: Lastly, the Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal v CBI determined whether the bail application should be referred to the Trial Court for consideration given that Kejriwal filed for bail before the charge sheet was filed?

Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 Legal Provisions involved

In Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 Section 41, Section 41A and Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code played an important role. The following are the analysis of these provisions -

1.Section 41 of Criminal Procedure Code: Arrest of Accused Person

Section 41 (Now Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is related to the arrest of an accused person. It mentions the conditions under which an arrest can be made including the necessity of the arrest.

Section 41 of Criminal Procedure Code mentions the conditions under which an arrest can be made. The Bench in Arvind Kejriwal v CBI considered whether arrest of former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal by the CBI was valid. The Court analysed if the arrest met the criteria set out in Section 41 especially whether the CBI had sufficient grounds to arrest Kejriwal.

2.Section 41A of Criminal Procedure Code: Notice for Appearance Before Police

According to Section 41A (Now Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) it is mandatory for the police to issue a notice to the accused to appear before them before making an arrest in cases where arrest is not immediately necessary.

The issue raised in Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation case was whether the CBI violated Section 41A by not issuing a notice to Kejriwal before his arrest.

3.Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code: Grant of Bail in Non-Bailable Offences

Section 439 deals with the provision for granting bail in non-bailable offences. This section empowers the High Court or the Sessions Court the authority to grant bail to an accused person. In Arvind Kejriwal case, despite the serious nature of the charges involving the Delhi liquor policy scam the Court used its discretion under this section to grant bail.

On 13th September, 2024 in Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 the Division Bench of Supreme Court comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. He was granted bail, 79 days after his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Delhi liquor policy case. The Bench imposed various conditions for bail including a bond of Rs. 10 lakh and restriction on Arvind Kejriwal making public statements about the CBI’s case.

Rationale of Court on Prolonged Incarceration

Justice Kant in Arvind Kejriwal v CBI acknowledged the three triple test for bail before the Bench:

1. Whether the arrest of former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal was valid?
2. Whether Kejriwal even if lawfully arrested was entitled to bail?
3. Whether the matter should be remanded back to the Trial Court for bail, given that the charge sheet had not been filed at the time of Kejriwal’s bail application?

Justice Kant in Arvind Kejriwal vs CBI highlighted that prolonged detention before the Trial constitutes an unjust deprivation of liberty. The Supreme Court referred to Union of India v K.A. Najeeb (2021) he observed that if a trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable timeframe, the policy against granting bail would no longer hold. This principle had earlier been applied in the case of Manish Sisodia, Kejriwal’s co-accused in the liquor policy case.

Justice Kant observed that the CBI had submitted extensive documents including 17 accused persons and 224 witnesses in Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation and it was clear that the trial was unlikely to conclude quickly. The Court dismissed the claim of CBI that Kejriwal might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The Division Bench imposed the following conditions for bail:

• He must furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10 lakh with two sureties
• Arvind Kejriwal is prohibited from making any public comments regarding the merits of the case
• The same conditions imposed in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case such as a ban on visiting the Chief Minister office or signing official files would apply
• Kejriwal must attend every hearing in the trial court and fully cooperate in expediting the trial, unless granted exemption.

Justice Bhuyan’s Dissenting Opinion

Justice Bhuyan expressed serious concerns about two specific bail conditions imposed in the ED case which prohibited Arvind Kejriwal from visiting the office of Chief Minister or signing official documents. He considered the importance of judicial discipline but indicated his reservations about these conditions.

No Need for Relegation to Trial Court

Justice Kant noted in Arvind Kejriwal v CBI that filing a charge sheet marks an important shift in the circumstances of the case. However, the High Court had already heard arguments and issued notices and there was no need to refer the bail matter to the trial court.

Arrest Validity and Section 41A of CrPC

Justice Kant in Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation also discussed the validity of former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal arrest especially in the context of Section 41A of Criminal Procedure Code. However, the Bench found no infringement of this provision. Justice Kant referred to the CBI v Anupam J Kulkarni case (1992) and concluded that Arvind Kejriwal arrest was lawful. The Court also referred to Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) and stressed the importance of judicial caution and supervision in the arrest process to prevent the abuse of power by law enforcement.

Justice Bhuyan concerns on the timing of Arrest

Justice Bhuyan disagreed with Justice Kant's conclusion and suggested that the timing of the arrest raised doubts. In Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation he observed that the CBI had not considered arresting Kejriwal for over 22 months but moved swiftly after he was granted bail in the ED case in June 2024. This led him to question whether the arrest was intended to sabotage Kejriwal’s ED bail. Justice Bhuyan rejected the CBI's claim of non-cooperation.

In Arvind Kejriwal v Central Bureau of Investigation Justice Bhuyan referred to previous judgments including Mohd. Zubair v State (NCT of Delhi) which highlighted that arrest should be used sparingly and not as a tool for harassment. He also cited Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju v State of A.P. (2021) to argue that given Kejriwal had already been granted bail under the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) further detention in the same case was unjustified.

CBI's conduct criticized

In his final remarks, Justice Bhuyan in Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation strongly condemned the actions of CBI and called it a “high-handed” move that raised questions about fairness. He recalled previous criticisms of the CBI as a “caged parrot” and highlighted that the agency should strive to be seen as an “uncaged parrot,” free from any perceived bias in its investigation.

Lastly, Justice Bhuyan expressed strong reservations about the CBI’s arrest and suggested that it was an unjustified attempt to frustrate Kejriwal’s bail in the ED case. On the other hand, Justice Kant upheld the legality of the arrest but granted bail under certain conditions.

Conclusion

In Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 highlighted the delicate balance between lawful investigation and protection of individual rights. The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code especially when arresting a sitting Chief Minister. The case remains politically charged and reinforced judicial scrutiny over investigative powers and reaffirmed the principle that the rule of law must prevail regardless of the accused's status or political affiliation.