Arvind Kejriwal Bail Hearing: Delhi HC Reserves Decision in CBI Liquor Policy Case; Key Arguments by Abhishek Singhvi

Alleged Meeting Between Arvind Kejriwal and Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy

According to the CBI’s chargesheet, TDP MP and liquor businessman Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy met with Arvind Kejriwal on March 16, 2021, at the Delhi Secretariat. During this meeting, Reddy requested Kejriwal’s support for his liquor business in Delhi by making favorable changes to the Excise Policy 2021-22, which was under development at the time. The chargesheet further states that Kejriwal assured Reddy of his support and advised him to contact K Kavitha, who was reportedly collaborating with Kejriwal’s team on the Excise Policy. Additionally, Kejriwal allegedly asked Reddy to provide funds for his political party, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).

Alleged Kickbacks to Influence Excise Policy 2021-22

The CBI claims that some individuals involved in the South Indian liquor business paid advance kickbacks of approximately Rs 90-100 crore to certain AAP politicians and public officials through co-accused Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally, and Dinesh Arora. These payments were purportedly made to influence the Excise Policy 2021-22 to benefit their businesses. The chargesheet alleges that these kickbacks were later returned to some conspirators from the South lobby through profits made by wholesalers holding L-1 licenses. The methods used for these transactions included issuing excess credit notes, bank transfers, and leaving outstanding amounts in the accounts of companies they controlled.

Delhi High Court Reserves Order on Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail Plea

On Monday, the Delhi High Court reserved its order on Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s regular bail plea in the CBI case related to the excise policy.

Arguments by Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi

Senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi opposed the CBI’s argument that Kejriwal should seek bail from the trial court. Despite the CBI filing a chargesheet against Kejriwal in the trial court, Singhvi contended that merely filing a chargesheet did not automatically disqualify Kejriwal from seeking regular bail.

CBI’s Claims and Evidence Against Arvind Kejriwal

Advocate DP Singh, representing the CBI, informed the court that they had filed their final chargesheet against Kejriwal and others on Monday. According to the CBI, the investigation revealed additional evidence implicating Kejriwal, with the chargesheet naming six individuals, including Kejriwal. Notably, five of these individuals have not yet been arrested. The CBI counsel also presented testimony from IAS officer C Aravind, who stated that Vijay Nair brought a copy of the excise policy to be entered into the computer while Kejriwal was present, indicating Kejriwal’s direct involvement in the matter.

Here is what Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued

— Arvind Kejriwal has been granted bail thrice in the ED case

— He pointed out that since Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI, there have been no confrontations or new developments.

— He argued that the distinction between bail and writ petitions did not impact the case’s merit.

— There is no direct evidence against Arvind Kejriwal.

— CBI frequently refers to Vijay Nair as a central figure in the case, but Nair was granted bail in the CBI case a long time ago.

— The policy was the result of nine inter-ministerial committees involving officials from various departments and was published in July 2021 after a year of deliberation.

— While Arvind Kejriwal signed the excise policy, so did 15 other people, including the Lieutenant Governor. By the CBI’s logic, the Lieutenant Governor and the 50 bureaucrats, including the Chief Secretary, should also be considered co-accused, ANI quoted Singhvi as saying.

However, countering Singhvi, Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh, representing CBI, said that it was not an approval by LG. “All the officers have given statements. They manipulated the entire script,” he said.

— They refer to AAP spending ₹4 crore on publicity. I wonder how much money the ruling party has spent on publicity. I wonder if the CBI will ask them the question. There, the money is not ₹4 crore but ₹4,000 crore. Today, there is no direct evidence, no recovery. There is pure hearsay, reported Bar and Bench, quoting Singhvi.

Stay Updated: Visit Our Page for the Latest Trending News