Arvind Kejriwal applied in Supreme Court to extend interim bail for 7 more days, citing medical examination
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has filed a petition in the Supreme Court. In the petition, CM Kejriwal has demanded to extend his interim bail by 7 days. According to the Aam Aadmi Party, CM Kejriwal still has to undergo PET-CT scan as well as many other tests. Therefore, he has sought 7 days time from the Supreme Court for the investigation.
Let us tell you that Arvind Kejriwal got bail from the Supreme Court on May 10. He was granted interim bail till June 1. While passing the interim bail order, the bench of Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Dipankar Dutta had said that ‘Lok Sabha elections are the most important event of this year.’
The Supreme Court further said that crores of voters will cast their votes to elect the government of this country for the next 5 years. General elections provide vitality to democracy. In view of its importance, the argument of the prosecution is rejected, in which they had said that granting bail will benefit the politicians by being in a beneficial position compared to the common citizens of this country.
Kejriwal was in jail since March 21
ED arrested Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on March 21 in the alleged liquor scam of Delhi. Earlier, ED had issued 9 summons to him for questioning in the case. However, Kejriwal did not appear on any summons. The central investigating agency alleges that he was the main conspirator of the scam and was directly involved in demanding bribe from liquor traders. AAP, which has rejected these allegations, has been saying that there will be no leadership change in Delhi and Chief Minister Kejriwal will run the government from jail.
SC had asked these 6 questions to ED
- Why arrest before the general elections?
- Can criminal proceedings be initiated in relation to what has happened here without judicial proceedings?
- No attachment proceedings have been taken in this case so far. If it has been done, then show how Kejriwal is involved in the case?
- As far as the Manish Sisodia case is concerned, there are conclusions for and against it. Tell us where is the Kejriwal case? He believes that the limit of Section 19, which puts the responsibility on the prosecution and not on the accused. Thus, regular bail is not sought. Because they are facing section 45. The responsibility has fallen on them.
- Now ED should tell us how we should interpret this? Should we set the bar very high and ensure that the standards are the same to find out who is guilty.
- Why such a long gap between the initiation of proceedings and then the action of arrest etc.?
