Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal

Supreme Court's verdict on Arvind Kejriwal's bail in CBI case tomorrow

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief was first arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21 in a money laundering case connected to the liquor policy scam. The CBI arrested him later on June 26 in a corruption case.

by · India Today

In Short

  • Top court will deliver verdict on Arvind Kejriwal's plea seeking bail and challenging CBI arrest
  • CBI arrested Kejriwal on June 26 in corruption case stemming from liquor policy scam
  • He remains in Tihar Jail

The Supreme Court will on Friday deliver its verdict on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea seeking bail and challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the liquor policy case. The top court had reserved its order on the same plea during a hearing on September 5.

The verdict will be pronounced by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief was first arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21 in a money laundering case connected to the liquor policy scam. The CBI arrested him later on June 26 in a corruption case.

Due to his arrest by the CBI, he remains in Tihar Jail despite the Supreme Court granting him bail on July 12.

During the hearing on September 5, the Supreme Court against the Delhi Chief Minister's arrest by the CBI while still being in judicial custody in the ED case.

"When you are in custody, if you are arresting him again, then you need the permission of the court. There is something in the criminal procedure code," it said.

Appearing for Kejriwal, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi slammed the CBI and argues that the central probe agency arrested the AAP chief when he was on the "cusp of release" in the ED case.

He also pointed out that all the co-accused in the case, AAP leaders Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, Vijay Nair and BRS leader K Kavitha, were granted bail by the Supreme Court.

The CBI, however, opposed Kejriwal's bail plea, saying that he should not be considered on par with his co-accused in the liquor policy case.