The Supreme Court, on Thursday, reserved its order on incarcerated Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea for bail and against arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in an alleged corruption case rooted in now scrapped 2021-2022 Delhi liquor policy case.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reserved the orders after hearing arguments lasting the entire day in which both the Chief Minister Kejriwal and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) locked horns over the issue – whether incarcerated chief minister can approach the top court for bail by-passing the trial court.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the CBI said under the judicial hierarchy, Kejriwal should first approach the trial court for bail in the criminal case being investigated by the investigating agency before knocking the doors of the high court or the Supreme court.

However, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing Kejriwal, asking the chief minister to follow the judicial hierarchy starting with the trial court before climbing the judicial ladder, said it would amount to playing the game of “snake and ladder”.

Singhvi was referring to the August 9, 2024, top court judgment granting bail to former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia by a bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice K V Viswanathan in both the CBI and the ED cases.

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

Singhvi also referred to three recent judgments t of the top court which have reiterated the principle that ‘bail is a rule and jail an exception’.

Senior advocate Singhvi also told the bench that the top court had released him on interim bail twice- once in May to campaign for election and second time he was granted interim bail in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate in the excise policy case.

Countering Singhvi, ASG Raju said that both in the case of Sisodia and BRS leader K. Kavitha, they had at the first instance approached the trial court before reaching the High Court and the top court. He said that in the case of Kejriwal, he has never approached the trial court.

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

Describing Kejriwal a “privileged person” and an “influential political person”, ASG Raju said that if he succeeds before the top court he will have to go back to the High court for bail and if he loses then he will have to approach the trial court for the bail.

“He approached the High Court without going to the sessions court. This is my preliminary objection. On merits, the trial court could have seen it first. The High Court was made to see merits and it can only be in exceptional cases. In ordinary cases, sessions court has to be approached first,” ASG Raju told the bench stating “He is an influential political personality. All other ‘Aam Aadmis’ have to go to sessions court.”

Kejriwal has approached the Supreme Court challenging the August 5, Delhi High Court order upholding his arrest as “legal” and asking him to approach the trial court for bail.

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

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

Dismissing Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI, the Delhi High Court on August 5, 2024, had upheld his arrest as “legal” and had 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 further probe against him.

The High Court had further said that there was no malice in his arrest by the CBI and he was an influential person and 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 convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party.

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