The Supreme Court will pronounce judgment on incarcerated Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea and his appeal against his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in an alleged corruption case linked to the now-scrapped 2021-2022 Delhi liquor policy.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had reserved orders on Kejriwal’s plea on September 5, following the conclusion of arguments by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the incarcerated Chief Minister, and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appearing for the CBI.

During the hearing, the CBI’s main contention was that Kejriwal had bypassed the judicial hierarchy by directly approaching the top court instead of first seeking relief from the trial court.

Appearing for the CBI, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that under the judicial hierarchy, Kejriwal should have first approached the trial court for bail in the criminal case under investigation by the central agency before knocking on the doors of the High Court or the Supreme Court.

However, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Chief Minister Kejriwal, said that asking the Chief Minister to follow the judicial hierarchy by first approaching the trial court and then climbing the judicial ladder would be akin to playing a game of “snakes and ladders”.

Singhvi referred to August 9, 2024, top court judgment, in which a bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan granted bail to former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in both the CBI and ED cases.

While not accepting the CBI and ED’s plea that Sisodia should first go to the trial court for bail in both the alleged criminal and the money laundering cases, the August 9 judgment said, “It could thus be seen that this Court had granted liberty to the appellant to revive his prayer after the filing of the chargesheet. Now, relegating the appellant to again approach the trial court and then the High Court, and only thereafter this Court, in our view, would be making him play a game of “snakes and ladders”.

Singhvi had also referred to three recent judgments of the top court that have reiterated the principle that ‘bail is a rule and jail an exception’.

He had also told the bench that the top court had granted him interim bail twice — first in May to campaign for elections, and second in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate in the excise policy case.

In response to Singhvi’s arguments, ASG Raju said that in the cases of Sisodia and BRS leader K Kavitha, both had first approached the trial court before reaching the High Court and the top court. In contrast, he noted that Kejriwal had never approached the trial court.

Kejriwal has already been granted interim bail in the alleged money laundering case by the Supreme Court.

Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court challenging the August 5, 2024, Delhi High Court order, which upheld his arrest as ‘legal’ and directed him to approach the trial court for bail.

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

On June 26, 2024, the AAP’s national convener was also arrested by the CBI while in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate.

Dismissing Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI, the Delhi High Court on August 5, 2024, upheld his arrest as ‘legal’ and said that it was only after sufficient evidence was collected by the investigating agency and sanction was obtained in April 2024 that the CBI proceeded with a further probe against him.

The High Court had further said that there was no malice in his arrest by the CBI, noting that, as an influential person, witnesses could muster the courage to depose against him only after his arrest. The High Court had said that Kejriwal was not an ordinary citizen but a distinguished recipient of the Magsaysay Award and the convener of the Aam Aadmi Party.

“The control and influence he has over the witnesses is prima facie evident from the fact that these witnesses could muster the courage to testify only after the arrest of the petitioner, as highlighted by the special prosecutor,” the High Court had said in its order.