KV Network

SC denies interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal in excise case

SC denies interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal in excise case
Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

NEW DELHI, Aug 14 (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to grant interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a corruption case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the alleged excise policy scam and sought a response from the probe agency on his plea challenging his arrest.

As the hearing commenced before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, submitted that he had got interim bail on three occasions in the money laundering case, also linked to the alleged scam, despite the stringent conditions laid down for grant of bail in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Singhvi cited the top court’s interim bail orders passed on May 10 and July 12, as well as the regular bail granted by the trial court on June 20.

He informed the bench that the June 20 order of the trial court was stayed by the Delhi High Court on an “oral mention”.

Singhvi argued when Kejriwal could secure bail despite the stringent conditions laid down under the PMLA, he cannot be denied regular bail in the CBI case since the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) does not have similar rigorous provisions like the anti-money laundering law.

“I hate to say so but I have said this everywhere. This particular arrest is what might be called insurance arrest. You are having me interrogated on April 23 for nine hours, you do not have any further action till March 24 when the ED arrests me. I get three release orders and just on the cusp of the order, I am arrested in June,” Singhvi said.

Referring to Kejriwal’s health concerns, Singhvi requested for interim bail. He said an application seeking the relief has already been filed.

“We are not granting any interim bail,” the top court told Singhvi.

The senior lawyer then requested for a “shortest date” and the bench posted the matter for hearing on August 23.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *