2024 (8) TMI 324 - HC - Money Laundering

Chief Minister's arrest by CBI under Section 41(2) CrPC upheld after non-cooperation during interrogation

Arvind Kejriwal Versus Central Bureau of Investigation

Arvind Kejriwal Versus Central Bureau of Investigation - 2024:DHC:5794 Issues Involved:1. Legality of arrest under Sections 41 and 60A of Cr.P.C.2. Compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C.3. Grounds for arrest and their justification.4. Allegations of malice in law and ulterior motives behind the arrest.5. Necessity of custodial interrogation and judicial remand.6. Compliance with procedures for arrest and remand as per Cr.P.C.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Arrest under Sections 41 and 60A of Cr.P.C.:The petitioner contended that his arrest was in violation of Sections 41 and 60A of Cr.P.C., 1973, asserting that the arrest did not meet the mandatory conditions outlined in these sections. The court examined whether the arrest was necessary to prevent further offenses, ensure proper investigation, prevent tampering with evidence, or ensure the accused's presence in court. The court found that the Investigating Officer (IO) had recorded the reasons for arrest in compliance with the law, and the arrest was not illegal.2. Compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C.:The petitioner argued that no prior notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was given before his arrest, which mandates that a notice be served to the accused to join the investigation. The court noted that the petitioner was initially summoned under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and interrogated for nine hours. Subsequently, the IO sought court permission for further interrogation under Section 41A Cr.P.C. due to the petitioner being in judicial custody in another case. The court held that the IO had followed the procedure and obtained necessary permissions, thus complying with Section 41A Cr.P.C.3. Grounds for Arrest and Their Justification:The petitioner claimed that the grounds for his arrest, such as non-cooperation and evasive replies, were not justifiable. The court reviewed the application for arrest, which detailed the petitioner's alleged involvement in the criminal conspiracy related to the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 and the need for custodial interrogation to confront him with evidence and unearth the larger conspiracy. The court found that the grounds for arrest were adequately explained and justified, and the petitioner was not compelled to incriminate himself but to disclose facts within his special knowledge.4. Allegations of Malice in Law and Ulterior Motives Behind the Arrest:The petitioner alleged that his arrest was an 'insurance arrest' to prevent his release from jail and was carried out with malice. The court examined the timeline of the investigation, noting that the petitioner was initially summoned as a person acquainted with the facts and was only identified as an accused after sufficient evidence was gathered over one and a half years. The court found no evidence of malice or ulterior motives, stating that the arrest was based on the collected evidence and the need for further investigation.5. Necessity of Custodial Interrogation and Judicial Remand:The court reviewed the applications for custodial interrogation and judicial remand, which detailed the petitioner's alleged role in the conspiracy, the need to confront him with evidence, and the potential influence he could exert on witnesses and evidence. The court found that the Special Judge had considered all relevant factors, including the case diary, and determined that custodial interrogation and judicial remand were necessary for the investigation.6. Compliance with Procedures for Arrest and Remand as per Cr.P.C.:The court examined whether the arrest and remand procedures followed by the IO and the Special Judge were in accordance with Cr.P.C. The court found that the IO had obtained necessary permissions, recorded reasons for arrest, and followed due process. The Special Judge had also applied judicial mind and considered all relevant material before permitting the arrest and remand. The court concluded that the procedures were duly followed, and the arrest was not illegal.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the arrest was not illegal, the procedures for arrest and remand were followed in compliance with Cr.P.C., and there was no evidence of malice or ulterior motives behind the arrest. The pending application, if any, also stood disposed of.