9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable suspicion. However, such power of arrest is further subject to five circumstances described in Section 41 (1) (ii) (a) to (e). The reliance has been heavily placed by the Ld. Senior Advocate on the decision of Apex Court in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement [ 2024 (7) TMI 760 - SUPREME COURT] wherein under similar circumstances the arrest of petitioner in the PMLA case has been held as illegal. However, this judgement is distinguishable as the arrest was made under Section 41 (1) Cr.P.C. without warrants, which is not the case herein involving the arrest of petitioner by the CBI with the Orders of the Court. Compliance with S.41(2) Cr.P.C. for Arrest with Warrants - HELD THAT:- Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. gets attracted only when the arrest is made without the warrant of the Court. Pertinently, in the present case, the I.O. after having interrogated the petitioner on 24.06.2024 with the permission from the Court, moved another Application on the next day i.e. 25.06.2024 seeking permission to arrest the petitioner. The said Application though again did not mention the Section in which it was filed, but from its title as well as the contents, it is evident that it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso, it establishes that the loop of evidence against the Petitioner got closed after collection of relevant evidence after his arrest. No malice whatsoever, can be gathered from the acts of the respondent. Thus, it cannot be said that the arrest was without any justiciable reasons or was illegal - Petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16.04.2023. The petitioner duly complied with the Notice and appeared before the respondent/CBI and answered the queries and questions, for over nine hours. 9. There were simultaneous proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as "ED") whereby ED registered ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022 on 22.08.2022, wherein one prosecution complaint and seven supplementary complaints have been filed implicating as many as 38 accused and has cited more than 260 witnesses. 10. It is submitted that the ED had purportedly in exercise of power under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "PMLA, 2002") arrested the petitioner solely on the statements made by the co-accused and the Approver, wherein the name of the petitioner was mentioned. The arrest of the petitioner was challenged by ED, however, it was dismissed by this Court, vide Order dated 09.04.2024. 11. Aggrieved by the said Order/Judgment dated 09.04.2024, the petitioner approached the Apex Court vide SLP (Crl.) No. 5154/2024 which was allowed vide Order dated 10.05.2024, wherein the Apex Court held that the Appellant-Mr. Arvind Kejriwal is the Chief Minister of De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e brazen, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional acts of the respondent/CBI, in arresting the petitioner, on the following grounds: (i) that the arrest of the petitioner is in violation of Sections 41 and 60A of Cr.P.C., 1973. Despite the offence being punishable with seven years, the requirement of Sections 41 and 60A of Cr.P.C., 1973 Notice has not been adhered to by the Investigating Officer. (ii) that the arrest of the petitioner is carried out in breach and in violation of Section 41 (1) (b) (ii) of Cr.P.C., 1973 inasmuch as the grounds of arrest failed to justify any of its mandatory conditions. The learned Special Judge failed to satisfy itself as to how the arrest of the petitioner was necessitated under any of the Sub-Clause (a) to (e); (iii) that in the Arrest Memo dated 26.06.2024, the grounds of arrest merely stated that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation and not disclosing the facts which are within his knowledge, which cannot be the ground of arrest as has been settled by the Apex Court as well as High Courts in their various decisions. It shows maliciousness on the part of the respondent/CBI which was merely to create a frivolous reason f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch came into the possession of the respondent/CBI after 04.06.2024, but no discovery of a new material has been stated. Therefore, the arrest on the material that was in possession of the respondent/CBI prior to 04.06.2024, is illegal and not permissible under law. 17. Therefore, the petitioner makes the prayer to: (i) Hold that the entire proceedings leading to the arrest and incarceration of the Petitioner is in violation of Petitioner's Fundamental Rights under articles 21 and 22 (1) & (2) of the Constitution and contrary to the provisions of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973; (ii) Quash and set aside the order dated 26.06.2024 whereby remand of the petitioner to the custody of CBI was allowed for a period of 3 days, and order dated 29.06.2024 whereby the Petitioner was sent to Judicial custody for the period of 14 days; and (iii) Direct the forthwith release of the Petitioner from custody. 18. The respondent/CBI in its short Reply has stated that the investigation in the CBI case is independent of the investigation carried out in the case of PMLA by ED. The grant of bail to co-accused in this case has been given in the different circumstances depending on their respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o investigate the petitioner which was obtained on 23.04.2024. During this period, investigations against the other accused persons were ongoing and the material was being collected. The material was pieced together and thus, emerged the role of the petitioner. 23. To briefly explain the facets of the Excise Policy, it is stated by the respondent/CBI that an Expert Committee was constituted in September, 2020 under the Chairmanship of Shri Ravi Dhawan, the then Excise Commissioner, GNCTD, to study the various models of Excise Policy. From time to time, the Head of the Committee was changed to the then Excise Commissioner. The Expert Committee submitted its Report on 13.10.2020 and the same was put in public domain for comments on 31.12.2020. The comments from public/stakeholders were obtained through fabrication of certain e-mails through Zakir Khan, Chairperson of Delhi Minorities Commission on the e-mail id of Excise Department with copy to Manish Sisodia. It was done with the mala fide intention to manipulate the process by getting the comments from the public to bypass the Expert Committee Report which did not recommend the Private Wholesale Model as well as the option of Reta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coming Excise Policy. The petitioner told MSR to provide monetary funding to AAP. Vijay Nair then visited K. Kavitha at Hyderabad and the meeting was consequently held on 20.03.2021. MSR was told that a total amount of Rs. 100 crores had to be arranged for AAP as an upfront money to be given by March, 2021 out of which MSR was to contribute Rs. 50 crores. 29. On 21.03.2021, accused/Butchibaba Gorantla, CA of K. Kavitha, met MSR and his son Raghav Magunta (Approver) for demanding the money. Subsequently, Rs. 25 crores were delivered by Raghav Magunta to K. Kavitha between March, 2021 to June, 2021. In lieu thereof, Raghav Magunta was given a partnership of 32.5% in the Wholesale Liquor Licence (L-1) firm M/s Indospirits under Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 though as a proxy. Vijay Nair was instrumental in getting wholesale business of manufacturer M/s Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. which was having the largest share i.e., around 35% of market share in Delhi, to M/s Indospirits in which K. Kavitha also had the same stake through a proxy, Arun Pillai. The Wholesale business was in violation of the Rules and inspite of pendency of complaints of cartelisation and blacklisting against the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount so received by Chanpreet Singh Rayat, was towards his salary during the relevant period. 34. During investigations, the respondent-CBI also retrieved data from the hard disc containing the cloned data from mobile phones of the accused, Vinod Chauhan revealed that he was closely associated with the petitioner and other functionaries of AAP, which was also corroborated by various statements placed on record. 35. It is summarised that the petitioner had been involved in the criminal conspiracy in formulation and implementation of Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22; more specifically any or all the decisions of the Government and the Party were taken only as per his directions. According to the investigations conducted by the respondent/CBI, the petitioner, in connivance with the other accused persons, deliberately tweaked and manipulated the Excise Policy 2021-22 to enhance the profit margin of the wholesalers from 5% to 12% without any rationale. 36. Moreover, it was only on 14.07.2022, after the Report of the Chief Secretary in regard to the alleged offences, that the ex post facto approval to the decisions taken by Manish Sisodia, was given by the Cabinet again headed by the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tude of the petitioner when confronted with the evidence on record, sought the police custody on 26.06.2024 which was again opposed by the petitioner. However, after recording the cogent reasons, the Special Judge granyed Police Custody for three days. 43. Thereafter, the Application was moved on 29.06.2024 by CBI for judicial remand of the Petitioner as there was reasonable apprehension of the respondent-CBI that the petitioner being the most prominent politician and Chief Minister of Delhi, he was very influential and he may influence the witnesses and evidences already exposed before him during the custodial interrogation and also the potential witnesses. The petitioner was also likely to tamper with the evidence to be further collected and may also hamper the on-going investigations. The Special Judge thus, remanded the petitioner to judicial custody till 12.07.2024 having satisfied itself after perusing the Case Diaries and applying the judicial mind. 44. The respondent-CBI has further asserted that the investigation including the arrest, is the sole domain of the investigating agency, and whether the answers given by the accused-petitioner, are satisfactory or evasive remai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son Rules, 2018; Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Shivinder Mohan Singh and Ors., Crl. Rev. P. 410/2020 (Delhi High Court); CBI vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141; Poolpandi and Ors. Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and others, (1992) 3 SCC 259; Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1; Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Bhanu Prakash Singh vs. State, 2021 DHC 1814; Prateek Arora vs. CBI, 2022 DHC 5831; D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416; In the matter of Madhu Limaye and Others; (1969) 1 SCC 292; Jasbir Singh Sodhi vs. Union of India; 2010 DHC 33; Imran vs. State, 2016 DHC 7713; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439; Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466; Manoj Kumar Khokar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 3 SCC 501; Manish Sisodia vs. CBI, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3731; Manish Sisodia vs. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3231; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 280; Paramjeet vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appl. 1770/2013 (Delhi High Court) and K.K. Jerath vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh; (1998) 4 SCC 80. 49. It is also submitted that similar plea of illegal arrest of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss or is acquainted with the facts of the case under investigations. The very fact that the Notice had been served under Section 160 Cr.P.C., reflects the intention of the CBI of not summoning the petitioner as an accused. 55. The petitioner duly appeared before the respondent/CBI on 16.04.2023, in compliance of the Notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. and he was questioned for nine long hours. Thereafter again, there was a lull on the side of the respondent, who arrested the petitioner in the PMLA Case, on 21.03.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner in the present CBI case, was questioned in the jail with the permission of the Court on 24.06.2024. Thereafter, on 25.06.2024, the Application for arrest of the present petitioner in the CBI case, was made and he was sent to police custody for three days, vide Order dated 26.06.2024. It is argued that there was no interrogation done of the petitioner from the date of registration of FIR in August, 2022 till June, 2024. There can only be one conclusion that the petitioner was not intended to be arrayed as an accused and that there was no necessity of taking the petitioner into the custody. 56. Ld. Senior Advocate has further argued that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, in Paragraph 17 of the said Application, had sought his custodial interrogation. 59. The reliance has been placed on 'Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar', (2014) 8 SCC 273; 'Chanda Kochhar (supra); 'Lalita Kumari (supra), (2014) 2 SCC 1; 'Joginder Kumar (supra); 'Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra); 'Satender Kumar Antil (supra); 'Santosh vs. State of Maharashtra', (2017) 9 SCC 714 and 'Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India', 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244, to argue that this ground has not been held to be a justiciable ground for seeking the custody/arrest of the person. 60. Ld. Senior Advocate has re-emphasised that as per the statement made by Ld. S.G. before the learned Apex Court, the investigations were almost complete and the Charge-Sheet was intended to be filed by 03.07.2024 which has indeed been filed in the Court on 29.07.2024. Once the investigations were almost complete, it reflects that there remained nothing to be inquired from the petitioner. 61. It is further argued that the act of arrest of the petitioner, was nothing but an act of malice in law as the arrest was not necessary. It has been vehemently argued that the triple test, which has been historically holding g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents which have not been relied upon by the CBI, have also been placed on the record. There is no concealment of any evidence but the investigations have been carried out in the most objective manner. 65. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, has further stated that five people who were directly involved in the commission of offence, have been arrested in this matter. The independence of the CBI is evident from the fact that there are many other accused which have been named, against whom the Charge-Sheet has been filed, without arrest. It is only against those persons whose arrest was considered inevitable, that were arrested. This is manifest from the fact that the bail of co-accused K. Kavitha and Mr. Manish Sisodia, have been rejected in the first round, right up to the Apex Court. 66. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, has further explained that while the FIR had been registered in August, 2022, it was collecting, interrogating, investigating other co-accused and was collecting the relevant evidence in this case. It is only after sufficient incriminating material was collected against the petitioner, in a period of about one and a half year that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his subjective satisfaction, had been given in the Arrest Memo, as were also mentioned in the Application for arrest. The Learned Special Judge had deliberated over the incriminating evidence available against the petitioner and had also perused the case diary and considered that significant aspects of Mahadev Liquors having been given 17% share, sizeable money having been siphoned off for Goa elections and the role of the petitioner and also perused the case diary before permitting the arrest of the petitioner. It is contended that due compliance of the procedures of law especially Section 41Cr.P.C. and Section 41A Cr.P.C., had been duly followed in the arrest of the petitioner and there are no grounds on which the arrest can be termed as illegal. 69. Submissions heard in detail and the Written Submissions as well as documents filed on behalf of both the parties, perused. 70. The arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and costs scars forever, the Apex Court observed in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. It further lamented that despite so many years of Independence, the Police has not been able to come out of its colonial mindset and arrest is la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41A of Cr.PC, by way of amendment w.e.f. 01.11.2010 wherein it made mandatory for a police officer not to arrest an accused under Section 41 (1) Cr.P.C. without first giving a Notice and so long as such person complies in continues to comply with the Notice. It is only when such person fails to comply with the Notice that the Investigating Officer may arrest the such person. Therefore, if the arrest is not necessitated on account of the reasons stated in 41 (1) (b) (ii)(a) to (e), the law mandates that no arrest be made without warrants and the Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. be given to the accused and so long as he joins the investigations, he shall not be arrested. 73. It is a bounden duty of every court, more so the courts of first instance, to ensure that the extraordinary powers of arrest and remand are not misused or are resorted to by the Police in a casual and cavalier manner. The procedure for arrest and remand is expressly provided and detailed in Cr.P.C., 1973 and must be scrupulously adhered to. 74. In the scheme of things, under Section 160 of Cr. P.C., 1973, where a person is considered as a witness, he may be interrogated, investigated or questioned in case he is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that person to comply with the said Notice. Sub-Clause 3 of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. further provides that so long as such person complies and continues to comply with the Notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence unless for the reasons to be recorded, the Police Officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. 77. In this context of Section 41A of Cr.P.C., 1973, we may refer to the sequence of events in the present case. An Application dated 24.06.2024 was filed on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Special Judge, PC Act by the respondent-CBI seeking permission to examine the petitioner. The said Application succinctly encapsulated the crux of the allegations and also detailed the investigations which had been carried out in taking out the New Excise Policy 2021-22, whereby the profit margin of the wholesalers was enhanced from 5% to 12%, pursuant to alleged conspiracy amongst the various persons in order to cause a windfall gain for the wholesalers with an understanding of getting kickbacks in lieu thereof, upfront money to the tune of Rs. 92 crores. 78. It was further detailed in this Application dated 24.06.2024 seeking examination of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., 1973.The accused may have been in judicial custody in PMLA case, but without permission of the Court, he could not have been interrogated in the CBI case. Further, arrest is not prohibited absolutely, but Section 41A (3) Cr.P.C. states that where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice for reasons to be recorded, unless the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested. 82. The Police Officer, may thus, seek arrest of the suspect even if he has joined the interrogation under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., 1973 but it has to be only for cogent reasons. Therefore, the argument that there existed no occasion to arrest is not tenable; what needs to be considered is whether the Application dated 25.04.2024 moved for seeking permission to arrest contained justiciable reasons. Compliance of S.41(1) Code of Criminal Procedure for Arrest without Warrants: 83. Ld. Senior advocate has addressed much arguments that the conditions of Section 41 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P. C. were not satisfied while the arrest was effected and was therefore illegal. The attentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 87. On the similar lines, the Apex Court in 'Santosh vs. State of Maharashtra', held that Article 20 (3) enjoys an 'exalted status' and serves as an essential safeguard against torture and coercive measures used by the Investigating Officers. The consequences of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 41 and Section 41A, have been considered in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), wherein it has observed that consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused to the grant of bail. 88. It was further observed that in case of non-cooperation on the part of the appellant, for the completion of the investigation, it would certainly be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. Similarly, in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra), after making a reference to the aforesaid Judgments, it has again been reiterated that mere claim of accused not confessing, cannot be termed as an act of non-cooperation with the investigation. 89. The Law in regard to arrest without warrants under Section 41 (1) Cr.P.C. is thus well defined and settled that mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, this power to arrest without warrants is circumscribed by Section 41 (1) (b) which provides that the arrest without warrants can only be on the satisfaction of the existence of three circumstances i.e., (i) the credible information (ii) reasonable complaint or (iii) reasonable suspicion. However, such power of arrest is further subject to five circumstances described in Section 41 (1) (ii) (a) to (e). 92. The reliance has been heavily placed by the Ld. Senior Advocate on the decision of Apex Court in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement Crl. App. 2493 of 2024 dated 12.07.2024 wherein under similar circumstances the arrest of petitioner in the PMLA case has been held as illegal. However, this judgement is distinguishable as the arrest was made under Section 41 (1) Cr.P.C. without warrants, which is not the case herein involving the arrest of petitioner by the CBI with the Orders of the Court. Compliance with S.41(2) Cr.P.C. for Arrest with Warrants: 93. However, Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. gets attracted only when the arrest is made without the warrant of the Court. Pertinently, in the present case, the I.O. after having interrogated the petitioner on 24.06.2024 with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty, through his close associates and accused Vijay Nair, in lieu of favourable provisions in the Excise Policy of Delhi, 2021-2022, as well as, utilisation of ill-gotten money so received in the Assembly Elections of Goa, during the year 2021-2022 to meet the election related expenditure of Aam Aadmi Party". It was further stated that "Mr. Kejriwal also gave evasive replies regarding his role and the role of other co-accused persons in respect of criminal conspiracy hatched regarding the formulation and implementation of the Excise Policy of Delhi, 2021-2022. He did not divulge true facts and gave evasive replies to most of the relevant questions asked to him. His replies were contrary to the oral and documentary evidences gathered by CBI, during the investigation. He was not disclosed the facts truthfully despite being confronted with the incriminating evidence and also concealing the vital facts, which are exclusively in his knowledge. These facts are relevant for the purpose of investigation, to reach to the just conclusion of the case. 96. It was thus, stated that the custodial interrogation for confronting him with the evidence and to unearth the larger conspiracy hatched am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay derail the investigation including tampering with the evidence and influencing witnesses. 100. Learned Special Judge, considered the arguments of learned Senior Advocate that there was no necessity to arrest the accused considering the nature of the offence and passed the detailed Order dated 26.04.2024 giving all the reasons for permitting the arrest. The relevant part of the Order reads as under: "10. (i) The present case registered under Section 120 B IPC r/w 477 A IPC & Section of 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pertains to the formulation and implementation of Excise Policy of Govt. of NCT of Delhi for the 2021-2022. The investigation in this case is continuing and so far four charge-sheets have been filed. (ii) CBI has arrested the accused Sh. Arvind Kejriwal today in the Court. As per CBI, the accused has turned out to be one of the main conspirators of the Excise Policy. He was the Chief Minister. (iii) Ld. Special Prosecutor had referred to the entire Excise Policy which has also been discussed earlier in the previous applications of other co-accused persons. Though he admitted that Sh. Arvind Kejriwal was earlier served a notice under Section 160 Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be over zealous. (vii) In view of the factum of the investigation leading to the arrest of the accused, the role ascribed to him and the necessity to confront the accused with the evidence in the present case of conspiracy, the present police remand application of the accused is allowed " 101. The Ld. Special judge observed that at this stage of investigation, statement of witnesses and documentary evidence warranted the remand of the petitioner, to police custody. Investigation was held to be the prerogative of the Investigating Agency and on the basis of the safeguard provided in the law and from the material on record, it was held that the arrest could not be said illegal especially when the arrest had been made by the CBI, after taking permission from the Court. After considering all these facts, Ld. Special judge held that there existed sufficient grounds for remanding the accused to judicial custody, which was granted till 12.07.2024. 102. It is, therefore, on record that the "arrest was not solely based on ambiguous terms of non-cooperative attitude and evasive replies but these terms were duly qualified and explained." It was pointed out the aspects on whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsiveness or evasiveness of the Petitioner, was whether there existed sufficient suspicion and circumstances for his arrest. The argument that the arrest was illegal as violative of due procedure envisaged in Cr. P. C., and that no prior Notice of Section 41A as mandated by law, was given to the petitioner, is without any merit. From the circumstances as detailed above, it cannot be said that there was illegal exercise of power by the I.O. 107. That there were reasons to further remand the Petitioner to judicial custody were explained by the CBI, thereafter, while seeking judicial remand of the accused vide Application dated 29.06.2024. Ld. Special Judge before allowing the Application, considered the relevant facts. It was observed that the case diary is an effective instrument for the Court to keep a tab on the investigation and for the purpose of satisfy the Court regarding the grounds for Judicial Custody Remand. The Investigating Officer was asked to show the case diary wherein he had pointed out that during three days in police/CBI custody, the accused was confronted with the evidence including the statement of witnesses and other relevant documents, but there was no co-oper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It has been vehemently argued that the triple test, which has been historically holding ground for arrest of a person, have not been satisfied while making the arrest. The petitioner, who is the Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi cannot be any flight risk; he has roots in the society; has no criminal antecedents and is also not a habitual offender. There are no chances of his interfering with the documentary evidence and there is also not chance of his non-cooperation. 111. It is also argued that as per the statement made before the learned Apex Court, the investigations were almost complete and the Charge-Sheet was intended to be filed by 03.07.2024 and that the Charge Sheet has indeed been filed in the Court on 29.07.2024. The gravamen of the argument was that there was no reason to arrest the petitioner as the investigations stood almost concluded. 112. In the present case, it is not in dispute that initially, after registration of FIR on 17.08.2022, the petitioner was examined on 16.04.2023 for 9-10 hours after service of summons under Section 160 CrP.C. dated 14.04.2023 since at that stage he was identified only as a person, who was acquainted with the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
