Kejriwal challenges arrest by CBI in Delhi HC, terms it ‘insurance arrest’

NEW DELHI, July 17: Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenged in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday his arrest by the CBI in a corruption case stemming from the alleged excise policy scam and contended that it was an “insurance arrest” to ensure that he stays in prison.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who conducted the proceedings on a holiday on account of Muharram, heard the arguments advanced by the lawyers of Kejriwal and the CBI and reserved its order on the petitions challenging his arrest and seeking interim bail in the corruption case.
The high court has listed his regular bail plea for further arguments on July 29.
The counsel for CBI opposed both pleas of Kejriwal and said that terming his arrest an “insurance arrest” was unjustified.
Calling his arrest a “sham”, Kejriwal’s lawyer argued that the CBI did not want to arrest him and had no material to take him into custody, and the sequence of events made it clear that he was arrested to ensure that he remained in prison.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the AAP national convenor, contended, “It is unfortunately an insurance arrest. I have effectively three release orders in my favour (two from the Supreme Court and one from the trial court in the ED case) under very stringent provisions of the PMLA… These orders show that the man is entitled to be released.” Asserting that Kejriwal was “not a terrorist” but the chief minister of Delhi, Singhvi said his arrest was not as per the mandate of the law and he was entitled to bail.
“It is a rarest of rare case. He (Kejriwal) is already in custody in the ED case and CBI does nothing for the last one year and then suddenly arrests him,” he argued, adding that those who are doing this want him to remain in custody by “hook or crook”. Singhvi said
Kejriwal’s VIP status has made his situation worse than a common man and added that the chief minister’s blood sugar levels were fluctuating.
“It is a sham arrest, an insurance arrest, a non-necessity arrest which cannot be sustained,” he argued and cited the case of Pakistan’s former prime minister Imran Khan.
“We all read recently in the papers that in case after case, Khan was released but the day he comes out of jail, he is arrested in another case. Now they (Pakistan authorities) want to have a mega case against him. I don’t want to see similar things happening in our country,” Singhvi said.
Advocate D P Singh, representing the CBI, argued that multiple petitions and applications were being filed in several courts and till date, there have been no observations regarding any violations by the CBI or that the agency has been overzealous.
On the issue of not providing Kejriwal a notice before his arrest, Singh contended that the Delhi Prison Rules mandate seeking a court’s permission to interrogate someone who is in the custody of the court.
He said the CBI did not have to provide Kejriwal a prior notice. Singh said Kejriwal was examined by the CBI on June 24 but it did not arrest him and if this was an insurance arrest, it could have exercised its right to arrest in terms of Section 41 of the CrPC itself.
He pointed out that Kejriwal’s role was not evident at first as the excise policy fell under the purview of the excise minister.
However, when his involvement became relevant, he was called by the CBI, he said.
Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26 from Tihar Jail, where he is still lodged in judicial custody in a connected money laundering case filed by the ED.
The chief minister, who was arrested by the ED on March 21, was granted bail by the trial court in the money laundering case on June 20. However, the trial court’s order was stayed by the high court.
On July 12, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Kejriwal in the money laundering case.
The excise policy was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi lieutenant governor ordered a CBI probe into alleged irregularities and corruption involving the formulation and execution of the policy.
According to the CBI and the ED, irregularities were committed while modifying the excise policy and undue favours extended to licence holders. (PTI)