Probe agency must be above board, CBI should dispel notion of being caged parrot: Justice Bhuyan
New Delhi (PTI): Observing that the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal by the CBI was unjustified, Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Friday came down heavily on the premier agency for arresting the Delhi chief minister in the corruption case linked to excise policy 'scam', and said it must dispel the notion of being a caged parrot.
Writing a separate concurring judgement granting bail to the AAP supremo, Justice Bhuyan questioned the timing of Kejriwal's arrest by the CBI and said its aim was to frustrate grant of bail to him in the ED case.
Justice Surya Kant did not find any illegality in the CBI arrest.
"CBI is a premier investigating agency of the country. It is in the public interest that CBI must not only be above board, but must also be seen to be so. Every effort must be made to remove any perception that investigation was not carried out fairly and that the arrest was made in a high-handed and biased manner.
"In a functional democracy governed by the rule of law, perception matters. Like Caesar's wife, an investigating agency must be above board. Not long ago, this court has castigated the CBI comparing it to a caged parrot. It is imperative that CBI dispels the notion of it being a caged parrot. Rather, the perception should be that of an uncaged parrot," Justice Bhuyan wrote.
The top court judge said when Kejriwal has been granted bail under the more stringent provisions of PMLA, further detention by the CBI in respect of the same predicate offense has become wholly untenable.
"When the CBI did not feel the necessity to arrest the appellant for 22 long months, I fail to understand the great hurry and urgency to arrest the appellant when he was on the cusp of release in the ED case," Justice Bhuyan said.
He said the CBI can't justify arrest and continued detention citing evasive replies by Kejriwal, and added that non-cooperation cannot mean self-incrimination.
"The CBI must dispel notion of being a caged parrot, must show it is an uncaged parrot," Justice Bhuyan said.
It would be travesty of justice to keep Kejriwal in custody when he has got bail in the ED case on the same grounds, he said.
Justice Bhuyan said he has serious reservations on the conditions imposed in the ED case on Kejriwal which bar him from entering the CM's office and signing files.
"I am not commenting on conditions imposed on Kejriwal due to judicial discipline as it was in separate ED case," he added.
The excise policy was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi lieutenant governor ordered a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities and corruption involving its formulation and execution.
According to the CBI and the ED, irregularities were committed while modifying the excise policy and undue favours extended to licence holders.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
P&H High Court denies anticipatory bail to man accused of replacing national flag with saffron flag
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Vikas Tomar, who is accused of removing the national flag from a mosque in Gurugram’s Uton village and replacing it with a saffron flag.
Justice Manisha Batra, presiding over the case Vikas Tomar @ Vikash Tomar v. State of Haryana, observed that the allegations against the petitioner were not vague but specific, and supported by conversations between him and other co-accused.
“The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked at this stage,” the Court noted. It further stated that no exceptional circumstances had been presented that would justify granting pre-arrest bail, especially given the “serious communal and constitutional implications” of the alleged conduct.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was filed on July 7 in Bilaspur, Gurugram, reporting that anti-social elements had replaced the national flag atop a mosque with a saffron flag. Audio and video evidence were submitted along with the complaint. Two other accused were initially arrested under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, but were granted bail the same day.
The Sessions Court had earlier denied anticipatory bail to Tomar on July 15, with Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Chauhan observing that such acts threaten the social fabric in a diverse country like India. He remarked, “Any person of ordinary prudence and slightest of patriotism in his heart would not have dared to commit such a crime.”
Tomar's counsel argued before the High Court that he was not named in the FIR and had no role in the alleged incident. However, opposing counsel representing the State and the complainant contended that Tomar aimed to provoke communal unrest in the region.
Justice Batra, after considering the arguments, concluded that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. “No ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out,” the Court held.
Advocate Abhimanyu Singh appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Apoorv Garg represented the State of Haryana. Advocate Rosi appeared for the complainant.
The bail plea was dismissed.
