Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI inside Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court in connection with the alleged liquor policy case. This arrest marks a significant development in the ongoing investigation into the controversial policy.
Shortly after his arrest, Arvind Kejriwal withdrew a Supreme Court petition challenging a stay on the grant of bail following his March arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the same case.
The petition was withdrawn with no objection from the ED, as Kejriwal’s legal team cited a desire to launch a more substantial appeal against the High Court’s decision to stay the Rouse Avenue Court’s bail order.
During the proceedings at Rouse Avenue Court, Kejriwal’s lawyers argued that the CBI’s timing of the arrest was biased. “This man is in custody in one case. There is settled law that he can be arrested in another… but we are in due process here,” they stated.
Arvind Kejriwal requested a 24-hour deferral to study the CBI’s case, but the agency countered that the investigation was conducted with court permission and did not require prior notification to the accused.
Legal battle across courts
Kejriwal’s legal journey has seen significant twists since the Rouse Avenue Court granted him regular bail last week. On Saturday, just hours before his release from Tihar Jail, the ED moved the High Court, challenging the lower court’s bail order as “perverse” and “completely flawed.”
Also Read: Supreme Court refuses immediate relief to Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi Excise Policy case
The High Court issued an oral directive to pause the bail order and subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which acknowledged the unusual nature of the High Court’s actions but chose not to interfere as the verdict was still reserved.
The High Court eventually passed its final order, ruling against Kejriwal. It criticized the Rouse Avenue Court for not adequately considering the prosecution’s arguments and for failing to properly discuss conditions for release under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Ongoing legal arguments
Earlier this week, Kejriwal’s defense argued in the Supreme Court that he should remain free on bail, emphasizing that he is not a habitual offender and has no prior criminal record. The Supreme Court had previously granted him interim bail to campaign for the general election, acknowledging the balance of convenience in his favor.
Also Read: Arvind Kejriwal’s ‘do not mourn’ message before surrender
Arvind Kejriwal was initially granted regular bail by the Rouse Avenue Court, which accepted his argument that the case relied solely on statements from former accused turned government witnesses. He contended that there was no substantial evidence linking him to the alleged Rs 100 crore bribe from liquor sellers, which the ED claimed was used to fund AAP’s election campaigns in Goa and Punjab.
Controversial liquor policy
The ED’s case against Arvind Kejriwal revolves around alleged money laundering while framing the Delhi liquor policy for 2021-22. The policy was later scrapped following concerns raised by the Lieutenant Governor. The ED has accused Kejriwal and the AAP of receiving around Rs 100 crore from liquor sellers, a charge both Kejriwal and the party have vehemently denied, calling it political vendetta.
The situation remains fluid as Kejriwal’s legal team prepares for further appeals, and the political landscape in Delhi and beyond continues to react to these developments.
