Live
- Kiran Abbavaram's Hard Work Pays Off: Bunny Vasu Lauds Ka Team at Success Meet
- PM Modi’s welfare schemes transform rural lives in Bokaro, residents share gratitude
- We will ensure Bangladeshi infiltrators are removed from Jharkhand: BJP's Gourav Vallabh
- Hezbollah fires five rockets at central, northern Israel: sources
- HM Amit Shah, Rajnath Singh to address several rallies in Jharkhand tomorrow
- Will not waste single day in getting back what we lost, Omar Abdullah tells Assembly
- PM Modi visits Advani's residence to wish him on birthday, shares special moment
- Sun-Dried Cotton to Be Taken to CCI Purchase Centers, Avoid Middlemen - Collector
- Survey Process Requires Public Cooperation - Collector Badavath Santosh
- Distribution of Maize Seeds to Farmers at Agricultural Research Center
Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal Granted Bail By Supreme Court In Liquor Policy Case
- After six months in jail, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal receives bail from the Supreme Court in the alleged liquor policy scam, sparking debates on legal principles and evidence.
- This development comes after a previous instance where Kejriwal was temporarily released on bail for a brief period during the Lok Sabha Elections two months ago.
The Supreme Court of India has made a significant decision by granting bail to Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, who has been incarcerated for the past six months in connection with an alleged liquor policy scandal. This development comes after a previous instance where Kejriwal was temporarily released on bail for a brief period during the Lok Sabha Elections two months ago.
The legal proceedings leading up to this decision were marked by intense arguments from both sides. Abhishek Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, made a compelling case during the final hearing. He emphasized that his client had already met the criteria of the 'triple test' legal principle for bail, citing a previous bail granted by the same court in a related case involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The 'triple test' principle typically considers three factors when determining bail eligibility: the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice, the possibility of tampering with evidence, and the potential for influencing witnesses. Singhvi's argument suggested that since Kejriwal had been deemed eligible for bail under these criteria in the ED case, the same logic should apply to the current situation.
On the opposing side, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has consistently presented what they claim to be substantial evidence against Kejriwal. A significant portion of this evidence is derived from testimonies provided by 'approvers' - individuals who were previously accused but have been pardoned or offered reduced sentences in exchange for testifying against Kejriwal. This practice of using approver testimonies is a common but sometimes controversial tactic in high-profile cases.
The case has garnered significant attention due to Kejriwal's prominent position as the Chief Minister of Delhi and the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The alleged liquor policy scam involves accusations of corruption and money laundering in the formulation and implementation of Delhi's excise policy.
This bail decision by the Supreme Court is likely to have far-reaching implications, not only for Kejriwal's personal and political future but also for the broader political landscape in Delhi and potentially at the national level. It also reignites debates about the use of approver testimonies in legal proceedings and the application of bail principles in high-profile cases involving political figures.
As the case continues to unfold, it will undoubtedly remain a focal point of public and media attention, with potential ramifications for governance in Delhi and the ongoing discourse on political accountability in India.
