During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, said that the High Court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, who also appeared for Kejriwal, said that Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure (on giving notice to accused before arresting him without a warrant) has been violated.
“Our principle argument is that Section 41A has been violated. The trial court has said that 41 A has not been violated that’s why we are saying going to the trial court will be a futile exercise,” Chaudhari said.
Singhvi added that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on twin condition for grant of bail will not apply in CBI case.
“The Supreme Court has settled the law. There is no Section 45 PMLA involved here. My lord may hear it today itself. It is a bail plea. What is the point of all these judgements if my friend (CBI lawyer) comes and says I should go to trial court,” Singhvi said.
Advocate DP Singh, who appeared for CBI, questioned the decision of the Chief Minister to directly approach High Court for bail.
“The first court for bail should have been the trial court. For proprietary sake… this will become a norm in all cases,” he said.
The High Court said that these must be a strong ground to approach it directly for bail notwithstanding its concurrent jurisdiction to hear bail petitions.
“In how many matters has the Supreme Court said go to trial court on propriety? Law is clear, we have the concurrent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has said don’t clog the higher courts when the remedy is available to you. There must be some reason why you come to High Court directly,” the judge orally remarked before proceeding to issue notice to CBI.
Source: Barandbench
