Earlier, Kejriwal was arrested in connection with an alleged excise duty scam. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested him from his residence on March 21. Shortly after his arrest, the Delhi High Court rejected his plea for interim protection, which ruled out immediate relief for him.

Following his arrest, on July 12, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in the money laundering case. The Supreme Court directed a larger bench to examine three crucial questions regarding the necessity of Kejriwal’s arrest. This bench will address these questions to determine if his arrest is warranted.

Although the Supreme Court granted interim bail in the money laundering case, Kejriwal remains in judicial custody due to the ongoing CBI case. The CBI has charged him with corruption, and the investigation is still ongoing.

During the next hearing on August 27, the court will review the supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI, which will determine the future course of action in the case. Meanwhile, the extension of Kejriwal’s judicial custody indicates that further investigation and legal proceedings are needed. The proceedings in this case could have significant political and social implications, as it involves a major political party and its leader. Therefore, all eyes are on the upcoming court hearing in this case.

Kejriwal, a prominent figure in Indian politics and the convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), has been vocal in his defense, claiming that the summonses were not only illegal but also politically motivated. He has chosen to skip all the ED’s summonses, including the sixth one issued on February 19, 2024. Kejriwal has failed to attend six summonses – on February 19, February 2, January 18, and January 3 this year, and December 22 and November 2 last year.

The ED’s complaint against Kejriwal, filed under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleges that he intentionally disobeyed the first three summonses.The complaint was filed under Section 174 of the IPC for non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant and Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The court has acknowledged this offense, making Kejriwal liable to be prosecuted.

Kejriwal has cited various reasons for his non-appearance before the ED, including a debate on a trust motion in the Delhi Assembly and the ongoing Budget session. The court has granted him an exemption from appearing in person until March 16, 2024.

The ED has also accused the Delhi government of favoring private entities in the wholesale liquor business. According to the ED, the scheme involved setting a 12% margin for the entities, with a 6% kickback. The ED’s first prosecution complaint in November 2021 alleged that the policy was designed with deliberate loopholes to promote cartel formations and benefit AAP leaders.

The Delhi government’s 2021-22 excise policy aimed to revitalize the city’s liquor business by introducing a license fee-based regime for traders and offering discounts and offers on liquor purchases. However, the policy was abruptly ended after the lieutenant governor recommended a CBI probe into alleged irregularities.

The BJP has accused Kejriwal of trying to use the Budget session of the Delhi Assembly to escape the investigation into the liquor scam. The AAP has called the ED’s summons illegal and has urged the agency to wait for the court’s decision. Kejriwal has consistently argued that the repeated summonses from the ED were not only illegal but also a ploy to hinder his ability to campaign for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

The case highlights the ongoing political and legal battles between the AAP and the BJP in Delhi. Kejriwal’s repeated non-compliance with the ED’s summons has raised questions about his commitment to transparency and accountability in governance.

By-Kashish Jain

It’s been over 8 months that Sisodia has kept behind the bars as it was on 26^th of February that CBI arrested the AAP leader for his alleged involvement in the scam whereas ED made an arrest against him on March 9^th over money laundering case. As per the probe agencies, the new policy favored those who were ineligible for the liquor licenses for the monetary benefits.

It was by Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti the bail was denied to the prominent AAP leader as they continued to reserve their 17^th October verdict. Even though the Supreme Court of India on Monday has come up with denying of the bail to Manish Sisodia as they have found certain aspects still doubtful regarding both the corruption and money laundering case of scrapped Delhi excise policy, the court has ordered to wind up the case within 6 to 8 months of period. The Court has stated that if the trail moves in a sloppy manner then he can reapply for the bail in 3 months. As per the guardians, there are various questions that have not been answered and raise the concern.