The Central Bureau of Investigation on Tuesday (25th June) moved to arrest Arvind Kejriwal from Tihar Jail in the Delhi liquor policy case. This happened on the eve of the Supreme Court hearing his petition appealing the Delhi High Court ruling delaying the trial court’s order to give him bail.
As per the reports, the CBI also questioned Kejriwal in this case and granted permission to bring the Delhi Chief Minister before the relevant trial court on Wednesday (June 26), where he is expected to request his custody.
Notably, Kejriwal will appear before the CBI court on Wednesday morning, where he will be detained for further custodial interrogation.
The ED arrested Kejriwal on March 21, stating that the Delhi chief minister diverted money from liquor vendors to support party activities. The Aam Aadmi Party and other opposition parties have said that this case is part of the Narendra Modi regime’s habit of employing central agencies to target opposition figures.
Sanjay Singh, the AAP’s leader, dubbed the CBI’s move a “big conspiracy”. “At a time when there is a cent percent possibility that Arvind Kejriwal will get bail from the Supreme Court, sources have informed me that the Centre is conspiring to register a fake CBI case against the Delhi CM and get him arrested by the CBI. The entire nation can see this and is standing in solidarity with Arvind Kejriwal,” Singh said.
BJP की केंद्र सरकार और CBI की @ArvindKejriwal जी के ख़िलाफ़ बड़ी साज़िश
— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) June 25, 2024
अरविंद केजरीवाल जी को सुप्रीम कोर्ट से जमानत मिलने की पूरी संभावना है। इससे पहले केंद्र की BJP सरकार ने CBI के साथ मिलकर केजरीवाल जी के ख़िलाफ़ झूठा मुक़दमा तैयार करके उन्हें गिरफ़्तार करने की साज़िश रची है।… pic.twitter.com/IbaYD249Ew
Earlier in the day, the Delhi High Court stayed the trial court’s decision to grant Kejriwal regular bail. According to Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, the trial court did not fully understand the evidence presented by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The judge also agreed with Additional Solicitor-General S.V. Raju’s allegation that the Central agency was not given adequate time to argue its stay application.
