New Delhi [India], The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued a notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal against his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case of Excise Policy.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, after hearing the initial submissions of senior advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, said a reply would be filed within seven days and a reply within two days. The court listed the matter for detailed hearing on July 17, 2024.
During the submissions, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi informed the court that we are about to file the bail plea but nothing has been filed so far. Kejriwal's plea stated that the arrest of the petitioner constitutes a clear violation of the statutory mandate prescribed under sections 41 and 60A of the CrPC.
The offense charged against the petitioner carries a maximum punishment of 7 years and, therefore, compliance with sections 41 and 60A CrPC is mandatory and cannot be waived by the investigating officer.
In the present case, even though the offense is punishable with 7 years, the investigating officer failed to comply with the notification requirement of Sections 41A and 60A and, therefore, the arrest of the petitioner without complying with the requirement laid down by The law is illegal and not applicable. est in law.No proper justification or reasoning was provided for the arrest, especially considering that the investigation has been ongoing for two years, Arvind Kejriwal claimed in his statement before the Delhi High Court.
Kejriwal's statement further stated that his arrest was allegedly based on material that was in the possession of CBI before June 4, adding that arrest on previously available material is illegal as it involves re-evaluation, which is not permitted by the law.
CBI did not receive permission to investigate under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 until April 23. CBI has not shown any evidence obtained after April 23 to justify arrest under section 41 (1) (b) (ii), it stated in its statement before the Delhi High Court. On June 29, the Court of Delhi's Rouse Avenue sent Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to judicial custody in connection with the excise policy case on Saturday.
The CBI alleged that during remand, accused Arvind Kejriwal was examined and interrogated. However, he did not cooperate with the investigation and deliberately gave evasive answers contrary to the evidence in the file.
When faced with evidence, he failed to give adequate and truthful explanation regarding the improvement in profit margin for wholesalers from 5 per cent to 12 per cent under the new Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, without any study or justification. the CBI said. It also could not explain why during the peak of the second wave of Covid, the Cabinet approval for a revised Excise Policy was hastily obtained through circulation within a day, when the South Group accused They were camping in Delhi and holding meetings with their close aide Vijay Nair, CBI said.
He evaded questions regarding his partner Vijay Nair's meetings with various stakeholders in the liquor business in Delhi and demanded illegal gratuity from them for favorable provisions in the upcoming excise policy, the CBI added.
She also failed to give a proper explanation about his meeting with Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, accused Arjun Pandey and accused Mootha Gautham of India Ahead News. He also evaded questions regarding transfer and utilization of ill-gotten money to the tune of Rs 44.54 crore in the Goa Assembly elections by his party during 2021-22, the CBI said.In light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no need to continue custodial interrogation of accused Arvind Kejriwal at this stage, the CBI said.
CBI alleged that Kejriwal was deliberately and intentionally evading fair and relevant questions related to the case.
Kejriwal, being a prominent politician and Chief Minister of Delhi, is a very influential person, so there are credible reasons to believe that Kejriwal may have influenced the witnesses and evidence already placed before him during custodial interrogation and also in potential witnesses. which have not yet been examined, tamper with the evidence to be collected further and may hamper the ongoing investigation, the CBI added. On June 26, the vacation judge of the trial court sent Arvind Kejriwal to judicial remand. three days in the CBI.
Arvind Kejriwal himself addressed the court and said, "CBI claims that I have made a statement against Manish Sisodia, which is completely false. Manish Sisodia Nirdosh hai, Aam Aadmi Party Nirdosh hai. main bhi nirdosh hun. Iss Tarah ke statements hamme media me badnam Karne ke liye diye ja rahe hai (Manish Sisodia is innocent, Aam Aadmi Party is innocent. I am also innocent. These kinds of statements are given in the media to defame us).”
He also added, "CBI sources ke hawale se media me hamme badnam kar rahe rahe hai. Inka plan hai ki media cover ye chala de ki Kejriwal ne sara thikra Manish Sisodia pe daal diya. (They are defaming us in the media, quoting CBI Their plan is to have the front page of the media publish a story saying that Kejriwal has put all the blame on Manish Sisodia.)"However, the Court said: "Statement of Apki maine pad liya hai... apne aisa nahi bola. ("I have read your statement... you did not say this.")"
The CBI lawyer earlier alleged that on May 25, 2021, the policy was notified. Before this first attempt was made to meet the barons of alcoholic beverages. The policy was not notified. But did the process of searching for suitors begin?
Meanwhile, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari appeared on behalf of Arvind Kejriwal and opposed the remand petition filed by CBI and said that CBI has filed four chargesheets so far and is now arresting Kejriwal and is yet to identify some people through Kejriwal. Is this a valid reason for arrest? Kejriwal's lawyer further added that according to CBI, Kejriwal gave evasive answers during his interrogation in Tihar jail. The case investigator called it evasive because the only answer they want is Kejriwal's admission of guilt.
Chaudhri also questioned the timing of Kejriwal's arrest, saying: They (referring to CBI) were waiting for the pronouncement of Kejriwal's bail order. They could have arrested Kejriwal on June 2 when he surrendered. The materials need to be carefully examined by the Court before granting them (the CBI) custody of Kejriwal.
On June 26, the CBI arrested Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national coordinator Kejriwal after the vacation judge of the Delhi Court allowed the CBI to examine and interrogate him in the courtroom so that the agency could proceed with his formal arrest.The court also asked the CBI to record the material it has for Kejriwal's arrest.
The Delhi High Court recently stayed Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's bail order passed by the trial court, saying the trial court should have at least recorded its satisfaction with the fulfillment of the two conditions of the Article 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before issuing the impugned order.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, after hearing the initial submissions of senior advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, said a reply would be filed within seven days and a reply within two days. The court listed the matter for detailed hearing on July 17, 2024.
During the submissions, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi informed the court that we are about to file the bail plea but nothing has been filed so far. Kejriwal's plea stated that the arrest of the petitioner constitutes a clear violation of the statutory mandate prescribed under sections 41 and 60A of the CrPC.
The offense charged against the petitioner carries a maximum punishment of 7 years and, therefore, compliance with sections 41 and 60A CrPC is mandatory and cannot be waived by the investigating officer.
In the present case, even though the offense is punishable with 7 years, the investigating officer failed to comply with the notification requirement of Sections 41A and 60A and, therefore, the arrest of the petitioner without complying with the requirement laid down by The law is illegal and not applicable. est in law.No proper justification or reasoning was provided for the arrest, especially considering that the investigation has been ongoing for two years, Arvind Kejriwal claimed in his statement before the Delhi High Court.
Kejriwal's statement further stated that his arrest was allegedly based on material that was in the possession of CBI before June 4, adding that arrest on previously available material is illegal as it involves re-evaluation, which is not permitted by the law.
CBI did not receive permission to investigate under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 until April 23. CBI has not shown any evidence obtained after April 23 to justify arrest under section 41 (1) (b) (ii), it stated in its statement before the Delhi High Court. On June 29, the Court of Delhi's Rouse Avenue sent Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to judicial custody in connection with the excise policy case on Saturday.
The CBI alleged that during remand, accused Arvind Kejriwal was examined and interrogated. However, he did not cooperate with the investigation and deliberately gave evasive answers contrary to the evidence in the file.
When faced with evidence, he failed to give adequate and truthful explanation regarding the improvement in profit margin for wholesalers from 5 per cent to 12 per cent under the new Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, without any study or justification. the CBI said. It also could not explain why during the peak of the second wave of Covid, the Cabinet approval for a revised Excise Policy was hastily obtained through circulation within a day, when the South Group accused They were camping in Delhi and holding meetings with their close aide Vijay Nair, CBI said.
He evaded questions regarding his partner Vijay Nair's meetings with various stakeholders in the liquor business in Delhi and demanded illegal gratuity from them for favorable provisions in the upcoming excise policy, the CBI added.
She also failed to give a proper explanation about his meeting with Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, accused Arjun Pandey and accused Mootha Gautham of India Ahead News. He also evaded questions regarding transfer and utilization of ill-gotten money to the tune of Rs 44.54 crore in the Goa Assembly elections by his party during 2021-22, the CBI said.In light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no need to continue custodial interrogation of accused Arvind Kejriwal at this stage, the CBI said.
CBI alleged that Kejriwal was deliberately and intentionally evading fair and relevant questions related to the case.
Kejriwal, being a prominent politician and Chief Minister of Delhi, is a very influential person, so there are credible reasons to believe that Kejriwal may have influenced the witnesses and evidence already placed before him during custodial interrogation and also in potential witnesses. which have not yet been examined, tamper with the evidence to be collected further and may hamper the ongoing investigation, the CBI added. On June 26, the vacation judge of the trial court sent Arvind Kejriwal to judicial remand. three days in the CBI.
Arvind Kejriwal himself addressed the court and said, "CBI claims that I have made a statement against Manish Sisodia, which is completely false. Manish Sisodia Nirdosh hai, Aam Aadmi Party Nirdosh hai. main bhi nirdosh hun. Iss Tarah ke statements hamme media me badnam Karne ke liye diye ja rahe hai (Manish Sisodia is innocent, Aam Aadmi Party is innocent. I am also innocent. These kinds of statements are given in the media to defame us).”
He also added, "CBI sources ke hawale se media me hamme badnam kar rahe rahe hai. Inka plan hai ki media cover ye chala de ki Kejriwal ne sara thikra Manish Sisodia pe daal diya. (They are defaming us in the media, quoting CBI Their plan is to have the front page of the media publish a story saying that Kejriwal has put all the blame on Manish Sisodia.)"However, the Court said: "Statement of Apki maine pad liya hai... apne aisa nahi bola. ("I have read your statement... you did not say this.")"
The CBI lawyer earlier alleged that on May 25, 2021, the policy was notified. Before this first attempt was made to meet the barons of alcoholic beverages. The policy was not notified. But did the process of searching for suitors begin?
Meanwhile, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhari appeared on behalf of Arvind Kejriwal and opposed the remand petition filed by CBI and said that CBI has filed four chargesheets so far and is now arresting Kejriwal and is yet to identify some people through Kejriwal. Is this a valid reason for arrest? Kejriwal's lawyer further added that according to CBI, Kejriwal gave evasive answers during his interrogation in Tihar jail. The case investigator called it evasive because the only answer they want is Kejriwal's admission of guilt.
Chaudhri also questioned the timing of Kejriwal's arrest, saying: They (referring to CBI) were waiting for the pronouncement of Kejriwal's bail order. They could have arrested Kejriwal on June 2 when he surrendered. The materials need to be carefully examined by the Court before granting them (the CBI) custody of Kejriwal.
On June 26, the CBI arrested Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national coordinator Kejriwal after the vacation judge of the Delhi Court allowed the CBI to examine and interrogate him in the courtroom so that the agency could proceed with his formal arrest.The court also asked the CBI to record the material it has for Kejriwal's arrest.
The Delhi High Court recently stayed Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's bail order passed by the trial court, saying the trial court should have at least recorded its satisfaction with the fulfillment of the two conditions of the Article 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before issuing the impugned order.
