SC rejects CBI plea to remand Arvind Kejriwal to trial court for bail

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the CBI’s plea that Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal be sent to trial court with his bail plea in the corruption case filed by the agency in connection with the excise policy scam. The high court said that the court should generally consider the bail plea once a chargesheet is framed as the material that an investigating authority could have obtained would undoubtedly enable it to form a prima facie opinion about the gravity of the offence and the extent of the accused’s involvement.

However, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan held that there is no formula which prescribes that every case relating to consideration of bail must depend on the filing of a chargesheet.

Each case must be assessed on its own merits, recognising that there is no universal formula for determining bail levels, the report said.

The Supreme Court stated that a person in custody must normally first approach the trial court for bail. This process not only provides the accused with an opportunity to obtain an initial relief, but the Supreme Court can also serve as a second option if the trial court refuses bail for insufficient reasons.

“However, higher courts should adhere to this procedural remedy from the outset. If an accused person applies directly to the high court without first filing a request for relief with the trial court, it is usually appropriate for the high court to refer them to the threshold court.

“Nevertheless, if there are substantial delays after the notice, it may not be prudent to refer the matter to the trial court at a later stage. Bail being intimately linked to personal liberty, such claims should be considered expeditiously on their merits, rather than oscillating between courts on the basis of mere procedural formalities,” Justice Kant said in his 27-page judgment. Additional Attorney General S V Raju, appearing for the CBI, had argued that Kejriwal should be referred to the trial court as he had directly approached the high court for bail. Raju insisted that Kejriwal should not be given special treatment merely because of the position of power he holds or his political stature.

He argued that Kejriwal should be treated like any other accused and therefore he should first file a bail application with the court.

The Supreme Court held that the issue in this case was more or less academic in nature as the High Court had not referred Kejriwal to the trial court at the interim stage.

“Since a notice has been issued and the parties have apparently been heard on the facts by the High Court, we do not consider it necessary at this stage to remand the appellant to the trial court even though the filing of a charge sheet is a change in circumstances,” Justice Kant said.

Justice Bhuyan, writing a separate 33-page judgment, wrote that if the Supreme Court was considering remanding Kejriwal to the trial court, it could have done so at the outset of the case.

“After issuing notice, hearing the parties at length and reserving judgment for about a week, the above order was passed by the High Court. Though it was couched in language which appears to be in favour of the appellant, in practice it has only resulted in extending the appellant’s confinement for a much longer period, thereby affecting his personal liberty,” Justice Bhuyan said.

The Supreme Court has granted bail to Kejriwal in the corruption case. According to the Supreme Court, prolonged imprisonment is an unlawful deprivation of liberty.

The excise policy was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi Lieutenant Governor ordered a CBI probe into alleged irregularities and corruption in its formulation and implementation.

According to the CBI and the ED, irregularities were committed in changing the excise policy and unlawful favours were granted to permit holders.