Court orders Kejriwal's custody; CBI tactics under scrutiny
New Delhi: A special CBI court has denied Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal relief in the ongoing liquor policy case, stating that based on the current evidence, the arrest could not be deemed illegal. The court, however, advised the investigating agency to avoid being "overzealous" in their approach. Kejriwal has been remanded to three days of CBI custody, which is two days less than what the agency had requested. The arrest occurred inside the Rouse Avenue court, where he was initially granted bail before the Delhi High Court paused the decision and reserved its order. Subsequently, the high court denied him bail, and an appeal to the Supreme Court also brought no relief.
Sunita Kejriwal, the Chief Minister’s wife, has alleged a coordinated effort to keep him imprisoned. She took to social media to express her concerns, stating, "Arvind Kejriwal got bail on June 20. Immediately ED got a stay. The very next day CBI made him an accused. And today he was arrested. The whole system is trying to ensure that the man does not come out of jail. This is not law. This is dictatorship, this is emergency."
In its decision, the Rouse Avenue court emphasized the agency’s right to conduct investigations but highlighted the need for restraint. The court ruled that the current evidence did not render the arrest illegal but stressed the importance of avoiding overreach.
Kejriwal has been permitted daily visits with his wife for an hour and allowed to receive home-cooked food. His lawyer, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, argued against the necessity of the arrest at this juncture, questioning its timing. The court acknowledged the timing concerns but clarified that these alone do not determine the legality of an arrest.
The AAP leader recounted his prior cooperation during a nine-hour CBI interrogation in April last year, questioning the sudden shift from being treated as a witness to an accused. The CBI dismissed his allegations as unwarranted, noting that they acted with court permission and were not obliged to inform him of their investigative plans. The agency underscored their autonomy in conducting inquiries and affirmed that they had adhered to legal protocols throughout the process.
