LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Arvind Kejriwal vs Directorate of Enforcement

Not available · 2024 INSC 400Decided 10 May 2024
Not available
Justice Sanjiv Khanna · Justice Dipankar Datta

Background

Arvind Kejriwal, then Delhi's Chief Minister, was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) on 21.03.2024 in connection with a money laundering case arising out of predicate offences investigated by the CBI relating to the Delhi excise policy, involving Sections 120-B/447A IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the trial court and the Delhi High Court had upheld his arrest. He appealed to the Supreme Court, raising several legal challenges including on the scope of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (which governs the power to arrest). While the main appeal was still being argued and a final decision was going to take time, the 18th Lok Sabha General Elections were underway, and the Court had flagged on 03.05.2024 that it might separately consider interim bail.

Decision Breakdown

Without finally deciding the legality of the arrest or the merits of the money laundering case (arguments on which remained pending), the Court held that the ongoing General Elections were a significant intervening factor. It reasoned that granting narrowly-tailored interim bail did not amount to conferring any special privilege on account of the appellant being a politician, drawing on precedent that courts have similarly relaxed conditions to allow political participation for other public figures. The Court granted Kejriwal interim bail until 1 June 2024 (requiring surrender on 2 June 2024) on strict conditions, including furnishing bail bonds, not visiting the Chief Minister's office or the Delhi Secretariat, not signing official files unless necessary for Lieutenant Governor clearance, not commenting on his role in the case, and not contacting witnesses or accessing case-related official files. The Court expressly clarified that this grant of interim bail was not an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending criminal appeal.

Lesson Learnt

Courts can grant narrow, time-bound interim bail to an accused facing serious economic-offence charges when a compelling temporary circumstance, such as participation in a general election as a candidate/office-holder, arises while the main case is still being heard, without that being treated as any comment on guilt or innocence, and typically subject to strict conditions restricting official functions and public comment on the case.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case