The CBI Opposes Bail for Arvind Kejriwal, Labels Him 'Sutradhaar' of Liquor Policy Case.

In a supplementary chargesheet, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposed bail for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, referring to him as the 'sutradhaar' (mastermind) of the liquor policy case. Following the hearing, the court reserved its decision on the matter.


The CBI justified Kejriwal's arrest, asserting that the investigation would have been incomplete without his detention, and labeling him the central figure in the alleged scam. The CBI presented its case to the Delhi High Court, emphasizing the necessity of Kejriwal's arrest for a thorough investigation.

Arvind Kejriwal, also the national convener of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), was apprehended by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21 in connection with a money laundering case tied to the liquor policy scam. Although the Supreme Court granted him interim bail, he remains incarcerated due to his arrest by the CBI in a related case.

CBI’s counsel, Advocate DP Singh, argued that the filing of the chargesheet does not entitle Kejriwal to bail. Singh highlighted that similar chargesheets against AAP leader Manish Sisodia and Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha resulted in bail denials, as both are co-accused in the case.

The CBI alleged that Kejriwal, as the head of the cabinet, hastily signed and circulated the policy during the country's second COVID-19 lockdown. They claimed that individuals from the alleged "South Group" flew to the national capital on chartered flights for meetings.

The CBI insisted that they have substantial evidence against Kejriwal and that bail should not be granted due to the severity of the offense. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, countered by describing the arrest as an "insurance arrest" following Kejriwal's bail in the money laundering case.

Singhvi cited the Supreme Court’s order in Satender Antil’s case, arguing that non-compliance with arrest provisions entitles the accused to bail. He contended that there is no direct evidence against Kejriwal, no recovery from him, and the case relies solely on hearsay.


Singhvi highlighted that the policy's approval involved the Lieutenant Governor and nearly 50 bureaucrats across nine expert committees. He argued that it was not solely Kejriwal’s decision, noting that the LG had also signed off on the policy.

Singhvi criticized the CBI for basing their case on assumptions and hearsay, questioning the fairness and level playing field in the investigation. He argued that such an approach is not a valid method to establish criminal liability.

In response, the CBI's counsel dismissed the argument that the LG should be a co-accused, calling it sensationalism. The CBI maintained that they possess documentary and direct oral evidence against Kejriwal.

The court has reserved its order on Kejriwal’s bail plea, leaving the Delhi Chief Minister's legal team and supporters awaiting the final decision.