As the Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the now-scrapped 2021-22 Delhi excise policy case, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in a stern message to the Central Bureau of Investigation said that it should not be perceived as making the arrest in high-handed manner and must dispel the impression that it is a ‘caged parrot’ of the Central government.

Telling the CBI to change its perception in public mind, Justice Bhuyan said, “In a functional democracy governed by rule of law, perception matters. Like Caesar’s wife, an investigating agency should be above board. Not so long ago, this court had castigated the CBI comparing it to a caged parrot. It is imperative that CBI dispel the notion of it being a caged parrot. Rather the perception should be that of an uncaged parrot.”

Describing as “suspect”, the timing of the CBI in arresting Kejriwal when he was on the verge of being released in the ED case, Justice Bhuyan said, “When the CBI did not feel the necessity to arrest the appellant (Kejriwal) for 22 long months, I fail to understand the great hurry and urgency on the part of the CBI to arrest the appellant (Kejriwal) when he was on the cusp of release in the ED case… (the) timing of the arrest of the appellant by the CBI is quite suspect.”

Stating that CBI is a “premier investigating agency” and it is in “public interest that CBI must not only be above board but must also be seem to be so” and it is constitutional mandate that the “investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious”, Justice Bhuyan said, “Every effort must be made to remove any perception that investigation was not carried out fairly and that the arrest was made in a high-handed and biased manner.”

While holding that the Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI was legal, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan granted him bail with conditions that includes that he will not go to his office of the Chief Minister, neither go to Delhi secretariat nor will he sign the files.

Other bail conditions include that Kejriwal would furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Courts, shall not make any public comments on the case, shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, unless granted exemption, and shall fully cooperate with the Trial Court for expeditious conclusion of the trial proceedings.

Both Justice Kant and Justice Bhuyan differed on two points – legality of Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI and on the question of his not attending the Chief Minister’s office after being granted bail.

On the legality of Kejriwal’s arrest by CBI, Justice Kant said, “Having considered the CBI’s compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC and the inapplicability of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC, we are thus of the view that the Appellant’s arrest does not suffer with any procedural infirmity. Consequently, the plea regarding non-compliance of these provisions, merits rejection.

However, Justice Bhuyan said, “I am of the unhesitant view that the belated arrest of the Appellant (Kejriwal) by the CBI is unjustified and the continued incarceration of the appellant in the CBI case that followed such arrest becomes untenable.”

Similarly, Justice Bhuyan differed with Justice Surya Kant on the bail condition barring Kejriwal from attending his office of Chief Minister, going to Delhi secretariat and signing the files.

Justice Bhuyan said, “Though I have strong reservations on clauses (b) and (c ) which debars the Appellant from entering the officer of Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat as well as from signing files, having regard to judicial discipline I will refrain from further expressing my views thereon at this stage since those conditions have been imposed in separate ED case by two-judge bench of this court.”

Though Justice Bhuyan differed with Justice Surya Kant on both the counts but at the outset of his judgment he has said that he is in complete agreement with the conclusion and direction passed by Justice Surya Kant in his judgment that Kejriwal should be released on bail but have a “definite point of view “on the “necessity and timings of Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI”.

Dwelling on the Delhi High Court judgment, Justice Bhuyan said, ”This court has emphasised and reemphasised time and again that personal liberty is sacrosanct. It is of utmost importance that the trial courts and the High courts remain adequately alert to the need to protect personal liberty which is a cherished right under the Constitution.”

The top court judgment came on Kejriwal plea seeking bail and challenging his arrest by the CBI.

Kejriwal had approached the apex court seeking bail and challenging the Delhi High Court order upholding his arrest by the CBI in a corruption case stemming from the alleged excise policy scam.

On August 5, the Delhi High Court had upheld the arrest of the Chief Minister as “legal”. It had dismissed Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest, saying it was only after sufficient evidence was collected and sanction was obtained in April 2024 that the CBI proceeded with further probe against him.

The High Court had said there was no malice in the acts of the CBI which demonstrated how Kejriwal could influence witnesses who could muster the courage to depose only after his arrest.

It had said Kejriwal is not an ordinary citizen but a distinguished recipient of the Magsaysay Award and the convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party.

Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, 2024 in connection with a money laundering probe relating to alleged irregularities in the now-cancelled Delhi excise policy 2021-22.

On June 26, Kejriwal was arrested by CBI while he was in judicial custody in ED case.

On July 12, the top court granted Kejriwal interim bail in the money laundering case, while referring his petition challenging ED arrest to a larger bench.

However, he continued to remain in custody due to his arrest by the CBI.