We are examining legality of arrest of Arvind Kejriwal on 21.03.2024.

Gifford v. Kelson, (1943) 51 Man. R 120 accurately explains difference between “reasons to believe” and “suspicion”. “Suspicion” requires lower degree of satisfaction and does not amount to belief. An arrestee should be furnished “reasons to believe” to enable him to exercise his right to challenge same. An arrest under Section 19(1) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be exercised as per whims and fancies.

It has been strenuously urged, in present case, “reasons to believe” do not mention and record “reasons for necessity to arrest”. The term “necessity to arrest” [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273] is not mentioned in Section 19(1) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and stands Referred to a Larger Bench.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, [Criminal Appeal No. 2493 of 2024].

_____

CBI did not feel necessity to arrest for 22 long months. I fail to understand, great hurry and urgency on part of CBI to arrest when A.K. was on cusp of release. Not so long ago, Court had castigated CBI, comparing it to a caged parrot. It is imperative, CBI dispels the notion. Rather, perception should be of an uncaged parrot.

Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2493 of 2024 has imposed several terms and conditions. Though I have serious reservations, having regard to judicial discipline, I would refrain…  

– Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [Criminal Appeal No. 3816 of 2024] decided on 13.09.2024.