High Court Dismisses Kejriwal’s Bail Plea in Excise Policy Case, Orders CM to Seek Relief from Trial Court

The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on Monday, dismissed Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea for relief in the ongoing excise policy corruption case. The court observed that witnesses found the courage to come forward and speak up against the CM only after his arrest, highlighting the extent of his influence and control.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, delivering the 48-page judgment, remarked, “The control and the influence which he has on the witnesses is prima facie borne out from the fact that these witnesses could muster the courage to be a witness only after the arrest of the petitioner, as highlighted by the learned Special Prosecutor.” This observation underscores the significant impact of Kejriwal’s arrest on the progression of the investigation.

The court directed Kejriwal to approach the trial court for bail, emphasizing that the collection of sufficient evidence and the necessary sanction in April 2024 were pivotal in the CBI’s decision to proceed with further investigations. The judgment dismissed any notions of malicious intent by the CBI, stating, “No malice whatsoever can be gathered from the acts of the Respondent (CBI).”

The CBI’s charge sheet against Kejriwal and other accused was filed on July 29 in the Rouse Avenue Court. The High Court’s ruling highlighted the closure of the evidence loop post-arrest, contradicting the arguments made by Kejriwal’s legal team, who contended that the arrest was premeditated and strategic. Justice Krishna noted, “It is only after sufficient evidence was collected and the sanction was obtained in April 2024 that the CBI proceeded with further investigations into this matter.”

During the hearings, CBI Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh described Kejriwal as the “sutradhar” (narrator) of the “entire scam,” presenting direct evidence of his involvement. Singh argued that the trial court had already validated the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest, dismissing the defense’s claim that the mere filing of a charge sheet should automatically entitle the CM to bail. He further highlighted the precedent of bail denial to co-accused individuals, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha, despite charge sheets being filed against them.

Singh also pointed out that the interim orders concerning Kejriwal’s bail were contingent and not final. He stated, “There are no orders which have released him on bail. Those are just interim orders. First was for the elections, and the other is that it may be extended or can be reversed by the constitutional bench. The stay on bail in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case continues. It is an interim release dependent on another circumstance of the constitutional bench.”

The High Court’s ruling marks a crucial moment in the excise policy case, with the directive for Kejriwal to seek bail from the trial court adding another layer to the complex legal proceedings. The case continues to unfold, with the judiciary’s decisions playing a pivotal role in shaping the narrative and outcome.