Case Summary: Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation
.jpg)
(2024) 09 SC CK 0035
In The Supreme Court Of India
Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3816, 3817 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11023 of 2024)
Appellant: Arvind Kejriwal
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation
Date of Decision: 13-09-2024
Bench: Surya Kant, J; Ujjal Bhuyan, J (Division Bench)
Final Decision: Allowed
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2370025-arvind-kejriwal-vs-central-bureau?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=
All Citations:
(2024) 09 SC CK 0035
Facts of the Case:
The appellant, three-time elected Chief Minister of Delhi and National Convenor of Aam Aadmi Party, was implicated in the Delhi Excise Policy case. Though not named in the original CBI FIR (2022), he was later arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (March 2024) and subsequently by the CBI (June 2024) on allegations of conspiracy, corruption, and falsification of records. The Delhi High Court upheld his arrest and denied bail on 05.08.2024. The present appeals challenged the legality of his arrest and denial of bail.
Law Points Raised:
1. Whether arrest complied with mandatory safeguards under Sections 41 and 41A CrPC.
2. Whether High Court erred in applying Section 41(2) CrPC for cognizable offences.
3. Applicability of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar guidelines to political figures.
4. Whether continued incarceration violated Articles 19, 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution.
5. Whether bail should be granted considering pendency of trial with voluminous records and large number of witnesses.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:
• Constitution of India – Articles 19, 20, 20(3), 21, 226
• CrPC, 1973 – Sections 41, 41A, 160, 439, 482
• IPC, 1860 – Sections 120B, 477A
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 17A
• Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 19, 50
Judgments Referred:
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
• Precedents on bail principles and constitutional safeguards (triple test).
Obiter Dicta:
The Court reiterated that liberty under Article 21 cannot be sacrificed merely due to political stature. Safeguards under Sections 41/41A CrPC are mandatory even for high-profile accused. Trial delay and large volume of evidence necessitate a liberal approach to bail.
Ratio Decidendi:
The arrest of the appellant was vitiated by non-compliance with Section 41/41A CrPC safeguards. The High Court erred in relegating the appellant to the Trial Court when it had concurrent jurisdiction. Bail principles (‘triple test’) favored release as material evidence was secured and risk of tampering minimal.
Final Ruling:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declaring the arrest illegal and granting bail to the appellant. The judgment emphasized protection of personal liberty, strict adherence to CrPC safeguards, and upheld the principle that bail is the rule, jail is the exception.
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2370025-arvind-kejriwal-vs-central-bureau?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=
Summary:
The judgment reinforces mandatory arrest safeguards under CrPC and strengthens constitutional protection of liberty. The Court allowed Kejriwal’s appeal, setting aside the High Court order, and granted bail, reaffirming that due process applies equally to political leaders and ordinary citizens.