The Indian Express (Delhi Edition)
Witnesses from Goa will turn hostile if Kejriwal gets bail: CBI
He is influencing Punjab govt not to grant permission to probe, agency tells SC
OPPOSING DELHI Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s bail plea in the excise policy “scam” case, the Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI) Thursday told the Supreme Court that witnesses from Goa, including those who contested the assembly elections on an Aam Aadmi Party ( AAP) ticket, will turn hostile if he comes out of jail.
The court reserved its decision on the matter. Kejriwal filed two separate petitions challenging his arrest by the CBI in the case and seeking bail. He has challenged the August 5 order of the Delhi High Court upholding his arrest.
Additional Solicitor General ( ASG) S V Raju, who appeared for the central probe agency, told a two- judge bench presided over by Justice Surya Kant that there is also a Punjab angle to the matter but the ruling AAP government in the state is not granting permission to the central agency to probe it and said that Kejriwal “is influencing the non- granting of permission”.
In the trial court last month, the CBI had claimed that a big chunk of the bribe money from the excise policy scam was used by AAP in the Goa assembly polls in 2022.
The ASG told the bench, also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, that “there are a number of witnesses ( in the case) including Aam Aadmi Party candidates in Goa who stood for the elections, persons who took the money, and which was distributed in Goa”.
“They never came to give statements as long as he was not arrested. After he was arrested, they gave statements. They were avoiding giving statements. Now, after he comes out, all those witnesses will turn hostile,” he submitted. The ASG said “if” the court “is contemplating giving him some protection, then it has to be delayed at least till some important witnesses are allowed to be examined”.
Raju said that this is “not a case where any indulgence should be granted to this person... The person holding this post is indulging in corruption which is demonstrated by evidence”.
The senior law officer said this as the bench posed questions on his submission that giving bail to Kejriwal “would be demoralising the ( Delhi) High Court because there was no material before the HC...”.
However, Justice Bhuyan disagreed with this submission and said, “Don’t say that”.
Explaining why he made the submission, Raju said “because the High Court has not considered ( the matter) on merits”.
On the Punjab angle, the ASG said “there is a distributor called Mahadev Liquors. He had a wholesale licence, but he was not willing to pay the bribes or part of the bribe. So there was arm- twisting... Excise offices with ulterior motives closed down his distilleries in Punjab. So when he went to the excise department ( and asked) why have you closed down, why have you passed an order shutting down my distilleries, he was told your problem doesn’t lie here, your problem lies in Delhi... Finally, he surrendered his licence. The moment he surrendered his wholesale licence, permission was granted to restart the distilleries... The CBI wanted to investigate that angle...”
Raju referred to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and said it requires permission from the appropriate authority to commence an investigation. “The state government there, which is controlled by the AAP under the influence of the present accused, is not granting permission under Section 17A to Investigate that offence... He is influencing the nongranting of permission.”
Appearing for Kejriwal, Senior Advocate A M Singhvi argued that the Delhi CM had already been granted bail in the excise policy case registered by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which has more stringent provisions than the Prevention of Corruption Act under which CBI has booked him.
He contended that Kejriwal’s arrest was an “insurance arrest” to prevent his release in case he secured bail in the PMLA case and that he was not arrested for almost two years even though the FIR was registered in August 2022.
Singhvi said that the AAP leader, being “a constitutional functionary, cannot be a flight risk” and that there is no risk of tampering with the evidence which is documentary in nature and has already been collected.
To Singhvi’s contention that the CBI moved an application before the court seeking permission to i nter rogate hi m while he was under ED custody, without serving a notice on him as required by Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, Raju said such notice was not needed as he was i n custody and court was de- jure guardian.
Singhvi took exception to the ASG’S contention that this was only a “technicality” and said, “Matters of liberty cannot be a technicality... what I am referring to are procedural safeguards”.
Raju also pointed out that Kejriwal had approached the High Court seeking bail in the matter without approaching the sessions court. He said that this can be allowed only in exceptional circumstances and that the only exceptional circumstance in Kejriwal’s case is that he is the Chief Minister.
Singhvi, however, said the SC cannot now send him back to the trial court, which has considered the same thing during remand. He added that “it’s not a fair argument to raise by the CBI at this stage, except if delay is sought”.
The senior counsel also referred to what the SC said while granting bail to Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the excise policy “scam” cases. The court, he pointed out, had said, “now, relegating the appellant ( Sisodia) to again approach the trial court and thereafter the High Court and only thereafter this Court, in our view, would be making him play a game of “Snake and Ladder”.”
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21 in the money laundering case linked to the excise case. On June 26, the Chief Minister was formally arrested by the CBI in the corruption case linked to the “scam”. He was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court in the money laundering case on July 12 and is currently in judicial custody in the CBI’S corruption case.