Arvind Kejriwal interim bail: In the excise policy case, the Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi and national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
Arvind Kejriwal will not be released from jail despite the Supreme Court’s decision to grant him temporary bail; the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested him later on in connection with another case.
The Supreme Court set forth specific requirements for bail in its ruling, allowing the Delhi CM’s request for relief.
Kejriwal would not be permitted to enter the Delhi Secretariat or the Chief Minister’s office while on temporary parole, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Chief Minister was requested to provide a Rs 50,000 bail bond.
The criteria of the Supreme Court are as follows, per the document supplied by Live Law:
(1) He has to furnish a bail bond of the amount of Rs 50,000/- and a surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the jail superintendent;
(2) They will not visit the Chief Minister’s Office and the Delhi Secretariat.
(3) They will be bound by the statement given on their behalf that they will not sign official files unless it is necessary to do so to obtain the clearance/approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
(4) They will not make any comment regarding their role in the present case.
(5) They will not interact with any witness and/or have access to any official file connected with the case.
“The interim bail may be extended, or withdrawn by a larger bench,” the Supreme Court stated.
Kejriwal was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court earlier on Friday in connection with a money laundering case involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the purported excise policy scam.
A few hours later, Kejriwal’s judicial detention was prolonged by a Delhi court in a corruption case related to the excise policy issue (filed with the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI]).
During the hearing, Kejriwal questioned the ED’s authority to make arrests, claiming that the agency had no right to arrest and remand him.
The Supreme Court stated in its ruling on Friday that the ED may only use its arrest authority if the designated officer has sufficient evidence to form an opinion and document the reasons why the accused individual is guilty.
The Supreme Court ruled, as stated in Live Law, that the ED could not utilize its arresting authority to disregard evidence that cleared the accused.