Supreme Court Upholds Lawful Arrest, Grants Bail to Arvind Kejriwal: A Landmark Judgment on Procedural Compliance

Case: Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation Crl(A) No. 3816 of 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 687
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Factual Background

The Delhi government implemented the Excise Policy 2021-2022, which governs the sale and distribution of liquor. In July 2022, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and the Union Home Ministry presented charges of financial irregularities, prompting a complaint and an investigation by the CBI. This inquiry resulted in the filing of a First Information Report (“FIR”) for charges of criminal conspiracy, account falsification, and gratification for official acts (“CBI case”). Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) filed a rival complaint (“ED case”) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, citing the same charges. Notably, Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi’s Chief Minister at the time, was not initially identified as an accused in either case.

On 21 March 2024, Mr. Kejriwal was arrested by the ED in connection with the ED case. Although the Trial Court granted him bail on 20 June 2024, the Delhi High Court stayed this order on 21 June 2024, resulting in Mr. Kejriwal’s continued detention. Shortly thereafter, the CBI sought permission from the Trial Court to interrogate him, which was granted on 24 June 2024. Following the interrogation, the CBI applied for and obtained authorization to arrest Mr. Kejriwal on 25 June 2024. He was subsequently remanded to judicial custody on 29 June 2024. Meanwhile, on 12 July 2024, the Supreme Court granted Mr. Kejriwal bail in the ED case.

Seeking to challenge the legality of his arrest and to obtain bail in the CBI case, Mr. Kejriwal approached the Delhi High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). His petition argued that the procedural safeguards under the CrPC had not been followed by the CBI. However, the High Court rejected his plea on 05 August 2024, upholding the legality of his arrest and denying him bail. The High Court directed Mr. Kejriwal to approach the Trial Court for bail. Dissatisfied, Mr. Kejriwal appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, challenging both the legality of his arrest and the denial of bail.

This appeal concerns the legality of the arrest and the entitlement to regular bail of Arvind Kejriwal in connection with FIR No. RC0032022A0053, registered by the CBI under Section 120B read with Section 477A of IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arises from alleged irregularities and conspiracy surrounding the framing and implementation of the Excise Policy for 2021-2022.

The High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 05.08.2024, upheld the Appellant’s arrest and denied regular bail, prompting the present appeal.

Issues Considered

1. Whether the Appellant’s arrest complied with procedural and legal requirements under Sections 41(1)(b)(ii) and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?
2. Whether the Appellant is entitled to regular bail in light of the evidence and circumstances?
3. Whether the filing of a chargesheet constitutes a material change in circumstances requiring the Appellant to seek bail from the Trial Court?

Appellant’s Contentions

1. Illegality of Arrest: The arrest violated the procedural safeguards outlined in Sections 41(1)(b)(ii) and 41A CrPC. The Appellant argued that no valid reasons were recorded to justify the arrest.
2. Precedents: Relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), emphasizing that arrests under cognizable offenses must satisfy the conditions stipulated in Section 41 CrPC.
3. Regular Bail: Contended that prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Asserted that he satisfies the triple test for bail i.e no flight risk, no risk of tampering with evidence, and no criminal antecedents.

Respondent’s Contentions

1. Compliance with Procedures: Asserted that the arrest was made with prior permission from the Trial Court and complied with Section 41A CrPC, given the Appellant was already in judicial custody.
2. Custodial Interrogation: Justified the necessity of arrest to confront the Appellant with evidence and unravel a larger conspiracy.
3. Opposition to Bail: Highlighted the potential for witness intimidation and the influence the Appellant might wield due to his political stature.

Court’s Analysis

Legality of Arrest

The Court examined the procedural requirements under Sections 41(1)(b)(ii) and 41A CrPC:

• Section 41A: The Appellant’s judicial custody rendered the issuance of a notice redundant. The CBI sought permission from the Trial Court to interrogate and subsequently arrest the Appellant, ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards.
• Section 41(1)(b)(ii): The provision is inapplicable where an arrest is ordered by the Court. The Trial Court’s approval absolved the CBI of recording independent reasons for arrest.

Entitlement to Bail

• The Court clarified that the prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon Article 21 of the Constitution. Given that the completion of the investigation and the filing of the chargesheet, further detention was unwarranted.
• The Appellant demonstrated no flight risk or likelihood of evidence tampering. Conditions were imposed to mitigate concerns of witness intimidation.
• The appellant possessed no threat to the continuation of justice, and further he assured that no action that shall hinder the process of justice shall be done.

Filing of Chargesheet

The Court noted that, while the filing of a chargesheet often requires the accused to approach the Trial Court for bail, the High Court’s determination to decide the case on its merits made such relegation superfluous in this case.

Conclusion

In summation, the Supreme Court found the Appellant’s arrest by the CBI to be lawful and procedurally compliant. However, it determined that prolonged incarceration without trial would violate the Appellant’s fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court directed the Appellant’s release on bail subject to the following conditions: furnishing bail bonds of ₹10,00,000 with two sureties, refraining from making public comments on the case, and fully cooperating with the Trial Court by ensuring presence on all hearing dates.

This judgment reinforces the balance between procedural propriety in arrests and the preservation of individual liberty. It highlights the judiciary’s critical role in safeguarding fundamental rights while facilitating the smooth conduct of investigations and trials. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with all pending applications resolved in these terms.

Read Full Judgement