Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi and national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court on Friday in connection with the excise policy case. While this provides temporary relief, Kejriwal will not be released from custody immediately due to ongoing legal proceedings. The Supreme Court imposed strict conditions on his interim bail, outlining specific restrictions on his activities.
As per the court order, Kejriwal is prohibited from visiting his Chief Minister’s office and the Delhi Secretariat during his interim release. Additionally, he must furnish bail bonds worth ₹ 50,000. The court’s order, as documented by Live Law, specifies the following conditions:
(a) Kejriwal must provide bail bonds of ₹ 50,000 with a surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
(b) He is prohibited from visiting the Chief Minister’s Office and the Delhi Secretariat.
(c) He must adhere to the statement made on his behalf, which states he will not sign official files unless it is essential for obtaining clearance or approval from the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
(d) Kejriwal is prohibited from making any comments related to his role in the present case.
(e) He is not permitted to interact with any witnesses or access any official files connected to the case.
The Supreme Court further clarified that the interim bail could be extended or recalled by a larger bench.
Earlier on Friday, the Supreme Court granted Kejriwal interim bail in the money laundering case linked to the alleged excise policy scam, filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). However, hours later, a Delhi court extended Kejriwal’s judicial custody in a corruption case related to the excise policy matter, registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
During the hearing, several questions were raised regarding the ED’s power to arrest. Kejriwal argued that his arrest and remand by the agency were illegal. In its order, the Supreme Court asserted that the ED can exercise the power of arrest only when the designated officer has sufficient material to form an opinion, supported by written reasons, that the arrestee is guilty.
According to Live Law, the Supreme Court held that the ED cannot disregard evidence that could exonerate the accused while exercising the power of arrest.
