नई दिल्ली – सुप्रीम कोर्ट से अंतरिम जमानत मिलने के बाद मुख्यमंत्री अरविंद केजरीवाल शुक्रवार शाम को तिहाड़ जेल से बाहर आ गए। उन्हें लेने के लिए पंजाब के मुख्यमंत्री भगवंत मान, केजरीवाल की पत्नी सुनीता केजरीवाल, कई मंत्री और सैकड़ों कार्यकर्ता तिहाड़ जेल पहुंचे। जोश से भरे कार्यकर्ताओं ने आतिशबाजी कर केजरीवाल का स्वागत किया। बाहर आते ही केजरीवाल ने कहा कि देश को तानाशाही से बचाना है। इस तानाशाही से बचाने के लिए देश के 140 करोड़ लोगों को मिलकर लड़ना पड़ेगा।
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Arvind Kejriwal in this appeal has challenged the order and judgment passed
by the trial court and the High Court of Delhi, upholding his arrest by the
Directorate of Enforcement1
on 21.03.2024.
3. A number of legal pleas and issues have been raised, including the scope
and violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the appellant as well as
DoE at some length, albeit hearing is yet to conclude and considered
decision will take time.
4. In view of the prolongation of proceedings, in the hearing held on 03.05.2024,
we had put the parties to notice, that the Court may examine the question of
1 For short, ‘DoE’.
Crl. Appeal a/o SLP (Crl.) No. 5154 of 2024 Page 1 of 8
grant of interim bail/release. Accordingly, we have heard arguments on the
said aspect.
5. DoE had registered ECIR No. HIU-II/14/2022 on 22.08.2022 pursuant to
registration of the predicate offences by the Central Bureau of Investigation2
on 17.08.2022 in RC No. 0032022A0053 under Section 120-B read with
Section 447A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. This RC was registered on the complaint dated
20.07.2022 made by the Lieutenant Governor of the Government of NCT of
Delhi and on the directions of the competent authority conveyed by Director,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
6. The investigation by the DoE resulted in filing of the first prosecution
complaint on 26.11.2022. The Special Court took cognisance on 20.12.2022.
Thereafter, DoE has filed four supplementary prosecution complaints. CBI
has filed a chargesheet, followed by two supplementary chargesheets.
However, charges have not been framed.
7. At this stage, it is not possible for us to either conclude the arguments or
finally pronounce the judgment. However, there is an intervening factor which
has prompted us to consider and pass the present order, namely, 18th Lok
Sabha General Elections, which are in progress. As the appeal is pending
before us, we do not think it would be proper for us to direct the appellant –
Arvind Kejriwal to approach the trial court for interim bail/release. This may
not be apt in view of the legal issues and contentions that are under
examination and consideration before us.
2 For short, ‘CBI’.
Crl. Appeal a/o SLP (Crl.) No. 5154 of 2024 Page 2 of 8
8. It is no gain saying that General Elections to Lok Sabha is the most
significant and an important event this year, as it should be in a national
election year. Between 650-700 million voters out of an electorate of about
970 million will cast their votes to elect the government of this country for the
next five years. General Elections supply the vis viva to a democracy.3
Given
the prodigious importance, we reject the argument raised on behalf of the
prosecution that grant of interim bail/release on this account would be giving
premium of placing the politicians in a benefic position compared to ordinary
citizens of this country. While examining the question of grant of interim
bail/release, 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.
9. We will now refer to some case law on the power to grant interim bail/release,
which power is exercised routinely even by the trial courts.
10. In Mukesh Kishanpuria v. State of West Bengal4
, this Court has held that
the power to grant regular bail includes the power to grant interim bail,
particularly in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Others5
observes that parole
by way of temporary release can be granted by Government or its
functionaries in case of detenus under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Further, the High Courts
and this Court can direct temporary release of a detenu for specified reasons
3 See Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others,
(1978) 1 SCC 405.
4 (2010) 15 SCC 154.
5 (2000) 3 SCC 409.
Crl. Appeal a/o SLP (Crl.) No. 5154 of 2024 Page 3 of 8
when the request is unjustifiably rejected by the authorities. However, the
power of temporary release of a detenu suffering preventive detention is
exercised only in extreme and deserving cases.
12. In Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra6
, notwithstanding Section 32A
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19857
, which
prohibits the appellate court from suspending sentence awarded to the
convict, this restriction, it is observed, does not affect the power and
authority of the court to grant parole or furlough, even where a person has
been convicted and sentenced and his appeal has been dismissed.
13. Athar Pervez v. State8
, a judgment of the Delhi High Court authored by one
of us (Sanjiv Khanna), on the power to grant interim bail in cases registered
under the NDPS Act, in addition to the judgments noted, refers to Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others9
, which decision
leans on the Constitutional Bench judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia
and Others v. State of Punjab10, and Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Limited and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another11
,
and observes:
“
. The expression “interim” bail is not defined in the
Code. It is an innovation by legal neologism which has
gained acceptance and recognition. The terms, “interim”
bail/“interim” suspension of sentence, have been used
and accepted as part of legal vocabulary and are well
known expressions. The said terms are used in
contradistinction and to distinguish release on regular
bail during pendency of trial or appeal till final
adjudication. Applications for “interim” suspension or bail
