Source: The Indian Express 

Introduction  

Recently, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a judgment that sheds light on issues within the criminal justice system. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's partly concurring opinion criticized the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for its improper use of arrest and argued that Delhi CM’s detention was essentially an attempt to prevent him from benefiting from bail in another case. This judgment raises concerns about the misuse of legal procedures and the need for a more balanced approach to personal liberty. 

What are the Background and Court Observation in Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation?

Background: 

• The Chief Minister (appellant) of Delhi was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 26th June, 2024, in connection with the Delhi liquor policy case. 
• CM was already in custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a related money laundering case when the CBI arrest occurred. 
• The Delhi High Court had previously dismissed CM's plea challenging the CBI arrest on August 5, granting him liberty to approach the trial court for bail. 
• CM filed two petitions in the Supreme Court - one challenging his CBI arrest and another seeking bail in the CBI case. 

Court Observations: 

• The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered separate judgments on the petitions. 
• Justice Surya Kant held that appellant's arrest was legal and did not suffer from any procedural irregularity. 
• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the necessity and timing of appellant's arrest by the CBI, noting that it occurred after 22 months of inaction and immediately following his potential release in the ED case. 
• Both judges unanimously agreed to grant bail to appellant, citing that his continued incarceration would infringe upon his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The Court observed that the chargesheet had been filed and the trial was unlikely to be completed in the near future, which factored into the bail decision. 
• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that appellant's further detention in the predicate offence (CBI case) became untenable after he was granted bail in the more stringent PMLA case. 
• The Court imposed the same bail conditions on appellant as in the ED case, including restrictions on visiting the Chief Minister's office and Delhi Secretariat. 
• The Court dismissed appellant's petition challenging the CBI arrest while granting him bail. 

What are the Aspects of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in Granting Bail ? 

• Questionable Timing:  
  • Justice found the timing of the arrest suspicious, noting that the CBI did not arrest appellant for over 22 months after registering the case, but did so immediately after he was granted bail in the ED case. 
• Lack of Necessity:  
  • The judge questioned the necessity of the arrest, given that the CBI had not felt it necessary to arrest appellant for such a long period, even after interrogating him a year earlier. 
• Potential Misuse of Power:  
  • The arrest might have been made to frustrate the bail granted to appellant in the ED case, rather than for legitimate investigative purposes. 
• Untenable Detention: 
  •  The CM’s continued detention in the CBI case became untenable after he was granted bail in the more stringent PMLA case. 
• Unjustified and Belated:  
  • The belated arrest by the CBI was unjustified, and the continued incarceration that followed was untenable. 
• Procedural Fairness:  
  • While not directly ruling on the legality of the arrest, Justice Bhuyan's comments suggest serious concerns about the procedural fairness and motivations behind the CBI's actions. 
• Public Perception:  
  • He stressed the importance of public perception in a functional democracy, urging the CBI to dispel notions of bias or improper influence. 

What are the Aspects of Justice Surya Kant in Granting Bail ? 

• Legality of Arrest:  
  • Justice Surya Kant held that appellant's arrest was legal and did not suffer from any procedural irregularity. 
• Compliance with CrPC:  
  • He found no merit in the contention that the CBI failed to comply with the mandate of Section 41/41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 during the arrest. 
• Bail Grant:  
  • Despite upholding the arrest's legality, Justice Surya Kant agreed with Justice Bhuyan on granting bail to appellant. 
• Reasons for Bail:  
  • The chargesheet has been filed in the case. 
  • The trial is unlikely to be completed soon.  
  • Continued incarceration would infringe upon appellant's right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,1950. 
• Consideration of Related Cases:  
  • Justice Surya Kant noted that appellant had been granted interim bail in the ED matter arising from the same set of facts. 
• Precedent of Co-accused:  
  • He considered that several co-accused in both the CBI and ED matters had been granted bail by various courts. 
• Bail Conditions: 
  • Justice Surya Kant agreed to impose the same conditions on appellant as in the ED case, including restrictions on visiting the Chief Minister's office and Delhi Secretariat. 

What are the Main Issues Raise by Supreme Court Regarding Bail of CM of Delhi? 

• The Supreme Court's judgment granting bail to CM of Delhi in the excise policy case. 
• The CBI's justification for appellant's arrest and its scrutiny by the judges. 
• The potential violation of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution (right against self-incrimination) in the arrest process. 
• The need to reconsider the interpretation of the right against self-incrimination as established in the State v Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) case. 
• The use of procedural by investigating agencies to keep accused persons in jail. 
• The Supreme Court's rejection of the CBI's argument to send CM back to the trial court for bail. 
• Criticism of the Delhi High Court for asking CM to approach the trial court again for bail. 
• The broader issue of trial courts and high courts being reluctant to grant bail in high-profile cases. 
• The Supreme Court judgment reveals systemic problems in the criminal justice system, particularly within the judiciary. 
• The growing concern among some Supreme Court judges about courts abandoning their constitutional duties in criminal cases. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court's decision to grant bail to CM offers limited relief and emphasizes flaws in the criminal justice system. Justice Bhuyan’s critique reveals how investigation agencies are sometimes used to undermine justice, rather than protect it. This case serves as a reminder of the need for vigilant and fair judicial practices to safeguard individual rights and prevent the misuse of legal processes.