A two-judge bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard Kejriwal's petition, challenging his arrest and seeking bail. While Justice Kant upheld the legality of Kejriwal's arrest, citing no procedural irregularities, Justice Bhuyan had reservations about the arrest, particularly given the timing and motivations behind it. He pointed out that the CBI had refrained from arresting Kejriwal for nearly 22 months, only to take him into custody as his release in another case involving money laundering under the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was imminent. This led to questions regarding the fairness of the CBI's actions.
Despite the divergence in their opinions on the arrest itself, both judges agreed that bail should be granted, considering the chargesheet had already been filed and the trial was not expected to conclude soon. The bail conditions previously imposed during the ED investigation were maintained, meaning Kejriwal is barred from visiting the Chief Minister's office and the Delhi Secretariat while the case progresses.
The case traces back to the Delhi government's new liquor policy, introduced with the goal of generating increased revenue and curbing black-market sales. However, allegations soon surfaced, accusing the administration of granting undue advantages to private players, leading to a probe by the CBI and ED into suspected financial irregularities and money laundering. Kejriwal has consistently denied the charges, describing them as politically motivated.
Justice Bhuyan, in his judgment, emphasized the need for fairness in the investigation, reminding the CBI of its duty to act impartially. He expressed concern over the timing of the arrest, particularly in relation to the ED case, suggesting that the CBI's actions could be perceived as an attempt to keep Kejriwal detained despite his impending release.