On Wednesday, a court in Delhi sent Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to CBI custody for three days in connection with an ongoing corruption investigation related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
Special Judge Amitabh Rawat issued the order following an application by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which formally arrested Kejriwal after receiving the court’s permission.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener is currently imprisoned due to a money laundering case linked to the excise policy, which is being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
In its application, the CBI argued that Kejriwal’s custody was necessary to uncover the broader conspiracy behind the case. The agency stated that it needed to question the Delhi chief minister and confront him with evidence and other accused individuals.
Also Read: Arvind Kejriwal arrested by CBI in Delhi Excise Policy case
Federal agencies have previously alleged that a “south lobby” influenced the creation of the now-scrapped excise policy and implicated Kejriwal in the process.
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.
Following his arrest, Arvind Kejriwal withdrew a Supreme Court petition challenging a stay on the grant of bail after his March arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the same case.
The petition was withdrawn without objection from the ED, as Kejriwal’s legal team cited a desire to launch a more substantial appeal against the High Court’s decision to stay the Rouse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.
