Case Summary: Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate Of Enforcement
(2024) 05 SC CK 0026
In The Supreme Court Of India
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 2493 Of 2024
Appellant: Arvind Kejriwal
Respondent: Directorate Of Enforcement
Date of Decision : 10-05-2024
Hon'ble Judges : Sanjiv Khanna, J ; Dipankar Datta, J
Bench : Division Bench
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2369814-arvind-kejriwal-vs-directorate-of?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=
Citations:
(2024) 05 SC CK 0026
Facts of the Case:
Arvind Kejriwal challenged his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) on 21.03.2024 in connection with ECIR No. HIU-II/14/2022 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The arrest was based on a predicate offence registered by the CBI under IPC Section 120B, Section 447A, and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Multiple prosecution complaints and chargesheets were filed but charges were yet to be framed. Kejriwal sought interim bail due to the ongoing Lok Sabha General Elections of 2024.
Law Points Raised:
1. Scope and validity of arrest under Section 19 of PMLA, 2002.
2. Whether prolonged detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Court’s power to grant interim bail during pendency of appeal.
4. Balance between individual liberty and seriousness of allegations.
5. Role of political office and elections in bail consideration.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:
• Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21
• Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 19
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 120B, 447A
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7
• NDPS Act, 1985 — Section 32
• Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 62(5)
Judgments Referred:
• Mukesh Kishanpuria v. State of West Bengal (2010) 15 SCC 154 (interim bail power)
• Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India (2000) 3 SCC 409 (temporary release)
• Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437 (parole despite NDPS restrictions)
• Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694
• Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 (bail jurisprudence)
• Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 1 (right to vote curtailed for prisoners)
Obiter Dicta:
The Court emphasized that elections are the lifeblood of democracy and peculiar circumstances such as ongoing general elections must be considered in bail applications. Ignoring such context would be unjust and iniquitous. Courts must adopt a holistic and libertarian approach under Article 21.
Ratio Decidendi:
While upholding the seriousness of allegations, the Court held that interim bail could be granted in light of elections, pending final adjudication on the legality of arrest. Article 21 protects liberty, and courts have inherent powers to grant interim bail even in stringent legislations like PMLA or NDPS.
Final Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal till 01.06.2024, directing him to surrender on 02.06.2024. Conditions included furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000, avoiding official CM office/Delhi Secretariat, not signing files except those requiring LG approval, not commenting on the case, and not interacting with witnesses or accessing files.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers:
Paras 2–6 (background), Paras 7–8 (importance of elections), Paras 9–13 (case law on interim bail), Paras 15–17 (peculiar circumstances), Para 18 (final bail directions).
Summary:
This judgment granted interim bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case, considering the importance of the 2024 General Elections and his constitutional rights under Article 21. The Court reaffirmed its power to grant interim bail despite stringent laws, emphasizing a balanced approach between liberty and allegations of corruption.