Supreme Court Hearing
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail petition and his challenge against his arrest by the CBI are being heard in the Supreme Court today. Justices Suryakant and Ujjal Bhuyan are overseeing the case. Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi is representing Kejriwal.
Singhvi’s Arguments
During the hearing, Singhvi pointed out several dates, arguing that the CBI’s actions are aimed at preventing Kejriwal from getting bail. He claimed that the CBI’s arrest was unnecessary, noting that there were two release orders under the PMLA but Kejriwal was still arrested under corruption laws. Singhvi emphasized that the Supreme Court had previously granted Kejriwal interim bail twice.
See here also : kejriwal-is-not-an-extraordinary-person-says-cbi-in-supreme-court
CBI’s Response
CBI lawyer S.V. Raju responded, saying that the CBI had presented reasons in its favor, which Singhvi was selectively quoting. Raju argued that Kejriwal’s arrest was justified because he was not cooperating with the investigation. The CBI had previously informed the court about Kejriwal’s arrest when he was in judicial custody for the ED case.
Debate on Process
Singhvi questioned why Kejriwal was arrested if only questioning was needed and highlighted that the case was two years old. He argued that there was no real threat of evidence tampering or flight risk. Singhvi criticized the arrest as unnecessary and likened it to an “insurance arrest.”
Singhvi’s Critique of the Arrest
Singhvi referred to the Arnesh Kumar judgment, which states that arrests should only be made if necessary, and questioned if there was any real danger of Kejriwal reoffending. He stressed that Kejriwal had already been granted interim bail twice.
CBI’s Stand
Raju countered that the case had been through various lower courts before reaching the Supreme Court. He pointed out that similar cases had been directed to lower courts first. Raju stressed that the Supreme Court’s comments on similar cases should not apply here and argued that the lower court should decide on bail.
Court’s Perspective
The Supreme Court noted that it did not want to create a perception of different laws for influential people. The court said that the process should be followed and suggested that lower courts should have been approached first.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court is considering the arguments and will make a decision based on the detailed information provided.
