Interim Bail Granted: Supreme Court Allows Arvind Kejriwal’s Release Amidst Election Season

Date of the Judgment: 10 May 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 400
Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, J., Dipankar Datta, J.

Can a high-profile political figure, facing serious accusations, be granted interim bail during an ongoing election period? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, granting interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, in a money laundering case. This decision highlights the complexities of balancing legal proceedings with the democratic process, especially during national elections. The bench comprised Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.

Case Background

The case involves allegations of money laundering against Arvind Kejriwal. The Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) registered a case on 22 August 2022, following a complaint by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had also registered a predicate offense on 17 August 2022, under Section 120-B read with Section 447A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The DoE filed its first prosecution complaint on 26 November 2022, and the Special Court took cognizance on 20 December 2022. Subsequently, the DoE filed four supplementary prosecution complaints, and the CBI filed a chargesheet followed by two supplementary chargesheets. However, charges have not yet been framed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court and the High Court of Delhi upheld Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE). Kejriwal then challenged these orders in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal, considered the question of granting interim bail due to the ongoing 18th Lok Sabha General Elections.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which deals with the power to arrest. The court also considered Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. The court also referred to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly Section 62(5), which discusses the right to vote and its curtailment. The court also referred to the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Arvind Kejriwal):

• The appellant argued for interim bail, emphasizing the ongoing 18th Lok Sabha General Elections as a significant factor.
• The appellant highlighted that he is the Chief Minister of Delhi and a leader of a national party.
• It was contended that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and is not a threat to society.
• The appellant also pointed out that the investigation has been pending since August 2022, and the legality and validity of his arrest are under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Respondent’s Arguments (Directorate of Enforcement):

• The prosecution opposed the grant of interim bail, arguing it would give politicians a privileged position compared to ordinary citizens.
• The respondent highlighted that the appellant had failed to appear despite nine notices/summons issued since October 2023.
• The respondent relied on the case of *Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India and Others* [(1997) 6 SCC 1], which upheld the curtailment of the right to vote for certain individuals to ensure free and fair elections.
• The respondent also cited *K. Ananda Nambiar and Another v. Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras and Others* [AIR 1966 SC 657], to argue that members of the legislature cannot claim freedom from arrest.
• The respondent further cited *State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe* [(1990) 1 SCC 397], to emphasize the need to consider all material collected by the investigating agency before granting bail.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellant should be granted interim bail/release.

Additionally, the court also considered the scope and violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, although it was not explicitly framed as an issue.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following cases:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• *Mukesh Kishanpuria v. State of West Bengal* [(2010) 15 SCC 154]: The Court used this case to affirm its power to grant interim bail, emphasizing that it is included in the power to grant regular bail.
• *Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Others* [(2000) 3 SCC 409]: This case was cited to support the idea that temporary release can be granted in deserving cases, even for those under preventive detention.
• *Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra* [(2000) 8 SCC 437]: The Court used this case to show that restrictions on suspending sentences do not limit the power to grant parole or furlough.
• *Athar Pervez v. State* [2016 SCC Online Del 6662]: This judgment was used to define “interim bail” and the circumstances under which it can be granted, highlighting that it is an innovation by legal neologism which has gained acceptance and recognition.
• *Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India and Others* [(1997) 6 SCC 1]: While the respondent relied on this case, the court distinguished it, noting that the right to vote can be curtailed to ensure free and fair elections, but this did not apply to the present case.
• *K. Ananda Nambiar and Another v. Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras and Others* [AIR 1966 SC 657]: The court distinguished this case, stating that while members of the legislature cannot claim freedom from arrest, the present situation warranted a more holistic and libertarian view.
• *State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe* [(1990) 1 SCC 397]: The court distinguished this case by stating that the present case required a more holistic and libertarian view.
• *Siba Shankar Das @ Pintu v. State of Odisha and Another* [2024 SCC OnLine SC 410]: The court followed this judgment to emphasize that conditions restricting political activities should not be imposed on bail.
• *State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nara Chandra Babu Naidu* [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 15099 of 2023]: The court followed this judgment to emphasize that conditions restricting participation in public rallies and meetings should not be imposed on bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal was influenced by a combination of factors, primarily focusing on the unique circumstances of the case and the ongoing General Elections. The court emphasized that the appellant is a high-profile political figure, the Chief Minister of Delhi, and a leader of a national party. The court also noted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and is not a threat to society. The court also considered the fact that the investigation has been pending since August 2022, and the legality of his arrest is under challenge. These factors, combined with the significance of the ongoing elections, led the court to take a more holistic and libertarian view.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that granting interim bail would give politicians a privileged position, stating that the decision was based on the unique circumstances of the case. The court also acknowledged that the appellant had failed to appear despite multiple notices but concluded that this negative factor was outweighed by other considerations. The court emphasized that the grant of interim bail should not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or the criminal appeal pending before the court. The court also observed that *“Interim” bail entailing temporary release can be granted under compelling circumstances and grounds, even when regular bail would not be justified. Intolerable grief and suffering in the given facts, may justify temporary release, even when regular bail is not warranted. Such situations are not difficult to recount, though making a catalogue would be an unnecessary exercise.”* The court also noted that *“General Elections supply the vis viva to a democracy”* and that *“the courts always take into consideration the peculiarities associated with the person in question and the surrounding circumstances. In fact, to ignore the same would be iniquitous and wrong.”*

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal until June 1, 2024, in light of the ongoing 18th Lok Sabha General Elections.
• The court emphasized that the decision was based on the unique circumstances of the case, including the appellant’s position, lack of criminal antecedents, and the pending challenge to his arrest.
• The court clarified that the grant of interim bail does not indicate an opinion on the merits of the case.
• The court’s decision underscores the importance of considering individual circumstances and the broader democratic context when deciding on bail applications, particularly during significant national events like general elections.
• The court also reiterated that interim bail can be granted in compelling circumstances, even when regular bail is not warranted.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• Arvind Kejriwal will be released on interim bail until 1st June 2024 and will surrender on 2nd June 2024.
• He shall furnish bail bonds of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the like amount.
• He shall not visit the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat.
• He shall not sign official files unless required for obtaining clearance from the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
• He will not make any comment regarding his role in the present case.
• He will not interact with any witnesses or access official files related to the case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that interim bail can be granted in compelling circumstances, especially when there are significant factors such as ongoing general elections, the position of the accused, and the challenge to the legality of the arrest. This decision reaffirms the court’s power to grant interim bail and highlights the importance of balancing legal proceedings with the democratic process. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case clarifies that the courts will consider the peculiarities associated with the person in question and the surrounding circumstances while considering the grant of interim bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal is a significant development in the ongoing legal battle. The court’s emphasis on the importance of the General Elections and the unique circumstances of the case highlights the complexities of balancing legal proceedings with the democratic process. This case underscores that interim bail can be granted when compelling circumstances exist, even when regular bail may not be warranted, and that courts will consider the peculiarities of each case. The decision also clarifies that the grant of interim bail does not indicate an opinion on the merits of the case, and the legal challenge to the arrest remains pending.