In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court Registry has denied Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s request for a seven-day extension of his interim bail. The decision, issued on May 29, 2024, was grounded in the argument that Kejriwal had the option to seek regular bail from the Trial Court, rendering his current application untenable.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi raised the issue before the Vacation Division Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan on May 28, 2024. Singhvi clarified that the criminal appeal had already been heard and reserved on May 17, 2024, by another bench. He also suggested referring the application to Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud for further orders.
Previously, on May 10, 2024, a Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta granted Kejriwal interim bail until June 1, 2024, with a directive to surrender on June 2, 2024. This decision was influenced by the ongoing 18th Lok Sabha General Elections. The interim bail came with several conditions: Kejriwal was to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount, avoid the Chief Minister’s Office and Delhi Secretariat, refrain from signing official files unless necessary for Lieutenant Governor’s clearance, abstain from commenting on his role in the case, and avoid contact with witnesses or access to relevant official files.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on August 22, 2022, following a complaint from the Lieutenant Governor on July 20, 2022. This was subsequent to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) lodging predicate offenses on August 17, 2022, under Section 120-B read with Section 447-A of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court acknowledged the case on December 20, 2022, with the ED filing four supplementary prosecution complaints. The CBI also submitted a chargesheet, followed by two additional supplementary chargesheets, though the charges have yet to be framed.
This legal wrangling marks a significant episode in the ongoing liquor policy case, further complicating Kejriwal’s political and legal challenges.
