ARVIND KEJRIWAL versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 346, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Issues
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 346 : 2024 INSC 400
Arvind Kejriwal 
v. 
Directorate of Enforcement
(Criminal Appeal No. 2493 of 2024)
10 May 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Appellant is entitled to grant of interim bail/release 
during the pendency of the Appeal challenging his arrest by the 
Directorate of Enforcement, on account of an intervening factor 
i.e. 18th Lok Sabha General Elections.
Headnotes†
Bail – Interim Bail during the pendency of Appeal – Court 
to consider peculiarities associated with person in question 
and surrounding circumstances – Appellant has not been 
convicted, no criminal antecedents – Question of legality and 
validity of arrest sub judice – Interim bail granted.
Held: Appellant arrested on 21.03.2024 by Directorate of 
Enforcement – Arrest upheld by trial court and High Court – Order 
and judgment challenged – Questions relating to legality and 
validity of arrest sub judice – Power to grant interim bail – 18th Lok 
Sabha General Elections is an intervening factor – More holistic 
and libertarian view justified – While examining the question of 
grant of interim bail, courts to consider peculiarities associated with 
person in question and surrounding circumstances – Appellant is 
the Chief Minister of Delhi and leader of one of the national parties 
– He has not been convicted and has no criminal antecedents – 
Investigation pending since August 2022 – Grant of interim bail 
to Appellant does not give premium
of placing the politicians in a 
benefic position compared to ordinary citizens – Interim bail granted 
subject to terms and conditions. [Paras 7, 8, 15]
Bail – Grant of Interim Bail – Terms and Conditions:
Held: Interim Bail granted subject to terms and conditions – 
Appellant to surrender on 02.06.2024 – Bail bonds with surety to 
be furnished – Appellant not to visit the Office of the Chief Minister 
and the Delhi Secretariat – Appellant bound by statement made
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
347
Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
on his behalf that he shall not sign official files unless it is required 
and necessary for obtaining clearance/ approval of the Lieutenant 
Governor of Delhi – Appellant will not make any comment with 
regard to his role in the present case – Appellant will not interact 
with any of the witnesses and/or have access to any official files 
connected with the case. [Para 18]
Case Law Cited
Siba Shankar Das @ Pintu v. State of Odisha and 
Another, 2024 SCC Online 410; State of Andhra 
Pradesh v. Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, Special Leave 
Petition (Criminal) No. 15099 of 2023 – relied on.
Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. Chief Election 
Commissioner, New Delhi and Others [1978] 2 SCR 
272  : (1978) 1 SCC 405; Mukesh Kishanpuria v. 
State of West Bengal [2010] 5 SCR 702 : (2010) 15 
SCC 154; Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and 
Others [2000] 1 SCR 945 : (2000) 3 SCC 409; Dadu 
@ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra [2000] Supp. 3 
SCR 703 : 2000 INSC 479; Siddharam Satlingappa 
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2010] 15 
(ADDL.) SCR 201: (2011) 1 SCC 694; Shri Gurbaksh 
Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab [1980] 3 
SCR 383 : (1980) 2 SCC 565; Central Inland Water 
Transport Corporation Limited and Another v. Brojo 
Nath Ganguly and Another [1986] 2 SCR 278 : (1986) 
3 SCC 156; Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India 
and Others [1997] Supp. 1 SCR 641 : (1997) 6 SCC 1; 
Anoop Baranwal v. Union
of India (Election Commission 
Appointments) [2023] 9 SCR 1 : 2023 INSC 190; S.R. 
Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab and Others [2001] Supp. 
1 SCR 621 : (2001) 7 SCC 126; K. Ananda Nambiar 
and Another v. Chief Secretary to the Government of 
Madras and Others [1966] 2 SCR 406 : AIR 1966 SC 
657; State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe 
[1990] 1 SCR 73 : (1990) 1 SCC 397; Athar Pervez v. 
State, 2016 SCC Online Del 6662 – referred to.
List of Acts
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Indian Penal Code, 
1860.
348
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Interim Bail; Interim suspension of sentence.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2493 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2024 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPCRL No. 985 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Amit Desai, Vikram Chaudhari, Sr. 
Advs., Vivek Jain, Mohd. Irshad, Rajat Bharadwaj, Karan Sharma, 
Amit Bhandari, Rishikesh Kumar, Shadan Farasat, Ms. Suchitra 
Kumbhat, Rajat Jain, Sadiq Noor, Mohit Siwach, Kaustubh Khanna, 
Gopal Shenoy, Shailesh Chauhan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Tushar Mehta, S.G., Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar 
Maroria, Kanu Agarwal, Annam Venkatesh, Zoheb Hossain, Vivek 
Gurnani, Hitarth Raja, Ms. Abhipriya, Kartik Sabarwal, Vivek Gaurav, 
Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Leave granted.
2.	
Arvind Kejriwal in this appeal has challenged the order and 
judgment passed by the trial court and the High Court of Delhi, 
upholding his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement1 on 
21.03.2024.
3.	
A number of legal pleas and issues have been raised, including 
the scope and violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money 
Laundering Act, 2002. We have heard learned counsel appearing 
for both the appellant as well as DoE at some length, albeit 
hearing is yet to conclude and considered decision will take time.
4.	
In view of the prolongation of
proceedings, in the hearing held on 
03.05.2024, we had put the parties to notice, that the Court may 
1	
For short, ‘DoE’.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
349
Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
examine the question of grant of interim bail/release. Accordingly, 
we have heard arguments on the said aspect.
5.	
DoE had registered ECIR No. HIU-II/14/2022 on 22.08.2022 pursuant 
to registration of the predicate offences by the Central Bureau of 
Investigation2 on 17.08.2022 in RC No. 0032022A0053 under Section 
120-B read with Section 447A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This RC was 
registered on the complaint dated 20.07.2022 made by the Lieutenant 
Governor of the Government of NCT of Delhi and on the directions 
of the competent authority conveyed by Director, Ministry of Home 
Affairs, Government of India. 
6.	
The investigation by the DoE resulted in filing of the first prosecution 
complaint on 26.11.2022. The Special Court took cognisance 
on 20.12.2022. Thereafter, DoE has filed four supplementary 
prosecution complaints. CBI has filed a chargesheet, followed by 
two supplementary chargesheets. However, charges have not been 
framed.
7.	
At this stage, it is not possible for us to either conclude the arguments 
or finally pronounce the judgment. However, there is an intervening 
factor which has prompted us to consider and pass the present order, 
namely, 18th Lok Sabha General Elections, which are in progress. 
As the appeal is pending before us, we do not think it would be 
proper for us to direct the appellant – Arvind Kejriwal to
approach 
the trial court for interim bail/release. This may not be apt in view 
of the legal issues and contentions that are under examination and 
consideration before us.
8.	
It is no gain saying that General Elections to Lok Sabha is the most 
significant and an important event this year, as it should be in a national 
election year. Between 650-700 million voters out of an electorate 
of about 970 million will cast their votes to elect the government of 
this country for the next five years. General Elections supply the vis 
viva to a democracy.3 Given the prodigious importance, we reject the 
argument raised on behalf of the prosecution that grant of interim 
bail/release on this account would be giving premium of placing the 
2	
For short, ‘CBI’.
3	
See Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others (1978) 1 
SCC 405
350
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
politicians in a benefic position compared to ordinary citizens of this 
country. While examining the question of grant of interim bail/release, 
the courts always take into consideration the peculiarities associated 
with the person in question and the surrounding circumstances. In 
fact, to ignore the same would be iniquitous and wrong.
9.	
We will now refer to some case law on the power to grant interim bail/
release, which power is exercised routinely even by the trial courts. 
10.	 In Mukesh Kishanpuria v. State of West Bengal4, this Court has 
held that the power to grant regular bail includes the power to grant 
interim bail, particularly in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
11.	  Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Others5 observes that 
parole by way of temporary release can be granted by Government 
or its functionaries in case of detenus under the Conservation of 
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. 
Further, the High Courts and this Court can direct temporary release 
of a detenu for specified reasons when the request is unjustifiably 
rejected by the authorities. However, the power of temporary release 
of a detenu suffering preventive detention is exercised only in extreme 
and deserving cases.
12.	 In Dadu @ Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra6, notwithstanding 
Section 32A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
19857, which prohibits the
appellate court from suspending sentence 
awarded to the convict, this restriction, it is observed, does not affect 
the power and authority of the court to grant parole or furlough, even 
where a person has been convicted and sentenced and his appeal 
has been dismissed.
13.	 Athar Pervez v. State8, a judgment of the Delhi High Court authored by 
one of us (Sanjiv Khanna), on the power to grant interim bail in cases 
registered under the NDPS Act, in addition to the judgments noted, 
refers to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra 
4	
[2010] 5 SCR 702 : (2010) 15 SCC 154
5	
[2000] 1 SCR 945 : (2000) 3 SCC 409
6	
[2000] Supp. 3 SCR 703 : (2000) 8 SCC 437
7	
For short, the ‘NDPS Act’.
8	
2016 SCC Online Del 6662
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
351
Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
and Others9, which decision leans on the Constitutional Bench 
judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of 
Punjab10, and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited 
and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another11, and observes: 
“20. The expression “interim” bail is not defined in the 
Code. It is an innovation by legal neologism which has 
gained acceptance and recognition. The terms, “interim” 
bail/“interim” suspension of sentence, have been used and 
accepted as part of legal vocabulary and are well known 
expressions. The said terms are used in contradistinction 
and to distinguish release on regular bail during pendency 
of trial or appeal till final adjudication. Applications for 
“interim” suspension or bail are primarily moved and 
prayed for, when the accused or convict is not entitled 
to or cannot be granted regular bail or suspension of 
sentence, or the application for grant of regular bail is 
pending consideration and is yet to be decided. “Interim” 
bail entailing temporary release can be granted under 
compelling circumstances and grounds, even when regular 
bail would not be justified. Intolerable grief and suffering 
in the given facts, may justify temporary release, even 
when regular bail is not warranted. Such situations are 
not difficult to recount, though making a catalogue would 
be an unnecessary exercise.”
14.	 Power to grant interim bail is commonly
exercised in a number of 
cases. Interim bail is granted in the facts of each case. This case 
is not an exception.
15.	 The prosecution has rightly pointed out that the appellant – Arvind 
Kejriwal had failed to appear in spite of nine (9) notices/summons, 
first of which was issued in October 2023. This is a negative factor, 
but there are several other facets which we are required to take into 
consideration. The appellant – Arvind Kejriwal is the Chief Minister of 
Delhi and a leader of one of the national parties. No doubt, serious 
accusations have been made, but he has not been convicted. He 
9	
[2010] 15 SCR 201 : (2011) 1 SCC 694
10	
[1980] 3 SCR 383 : (1980) 2 SCC 565
11	
[1986] 2 SCR 278 : (1986) 3 SCC 156
352
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
does not have any criminal antecedents. He is not a threat to the 
society. The investigation in the present case has remained pending 
since August 2022. Arvind Kejriwal was arrested, as noted above, 
on 21.03.2024. More importantly, legality and validity of the arrest 
itself is under challenge before this Court and we are yet to finally 
pronounce on the same. The fact situation cannot be compared 
with harvesting of crops or plea to look after business affairs. In 
this background, once the matter is subjudice and the questions 
relating to legality of arrest are under consideration, a more holistic 
and libertarian view is justified, in the background that the 18th Lok 
Sabha General Elections are being held.
16.	 We will now refer to the judgments relied on behalf of the DoE:
(i)	
In Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India and Others12, 
this Court rejected the constitutional challenge to sub-section 
(5) to Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, 
observing that the right to vote is not a constitutional right, and 
that the right can be curtailed. Interestingly, the proviso to the 
said sub-section states that a person subjected to preventive 
detention can vote. The prohibition was upheld on several 
grounds, including, inter alia, it promotes the object of free and 
fair elections. Indeed there are decisions of this Court that advert 
to the importance of elections in democracy, described as the
barometer and lifeline of parliamentary system and its setup.13
(ii)	
In K. Ananda Nambiar and Another v. Chief Secretary to 
the Government of Madras and Others14, challenge to the 
Defence of India Rules, 1962 in its application to Members of 
Parliament, was rejected on the ground that members of the 
legislature cannot claim freedom from arrest. Detention does 
not violate privileges of the Members of Parliament.
(iii)	 In State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe15, this 
Court while allowing the appeal, observed that the High Court 
has misdirected itself in granting bail to an accused convicted 
12	
[1997] Supp. 1 SCR 641 : (1997) 6 SCC 1
13	
See Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (Election Commission Appointments), (2023) 6 SCC 161, quoting 
from S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab and Others (2001) 7 SCC 126
14	
[1966] 2 SCR 406 : AIR 1966 SC 657
15	
[1990] 1 SCR 73 : (1990) 1 SCC 397
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
353
Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1987, by refusing to look into statements and further material 
collected by the investigating agency.
17.	 We would reject the argument that the reasoning recorded by us 
in paragraphs 7, 8 and 14, results in grant of privilege or special 
status to politicians. As observed in paragraphs 7, 8 and 14, several 
peculiarities of the case have weighed with us. In Siba Shankar Das 
@ Pintu v. State of Odisha and Another16, this Court accepting 
the appeal, deleted the condition imposed by the High Court 
stipulating that the appellant shall not be involved in any political 
activities, directly or indirectly. Imposition of this condition, the order 
holds, would breach fundamental rights. No such condition should 
be imposed. A coordinate Bench of this Court in State of Andhra 
Pradesh v. Nara Chandra Babu Naidu17, in an appeal filed by the 
State, by an interim order has deleted the condition restraining the 
respondent therein from organising or participating in public rallies 
and meetings, thereby permitting him to participate in the political 
process. This petition seeking special leave to appeal is still pending.
18.	 For the aforesaid reasons, we direct that the appellant – Arvind 
Kejriwal will be released on interim bail in connection with case ECIR 
No. HIU-II/14/2022 dt. 22.08.2022 till 1st of June 2024, that is, he will 
surrender on
2nd of June 2024 on the following terms and conditions:
(a)	 he shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with 
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail 
Superintendent;
(b)	 he shall not visit the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi 
Secretariat;
(c)	
he shall be bound by the statement made on his behalf that he 
shall not sign official files unless it is required and necessary 
for obtaining clearance/ approval of the Lieutenant Governor 
of Delhi;
(d)	 he will not make any comment with regard to his role in the 
present case; and
16	
2024 SCC OnLine SC 410
17	
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 15099 of 2023

354
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(e)	 he will not interact with any of the witnesses and/or have access 
to any official files connected with the case.
19.	 The grant of interim bail will not be treated as an expression of 
opinion on the merits of the case or the criminal appeal which is 
pending consideration before us.
Result of the case: Interim Bail granted.
†Headnotes prepared by: Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Hony. Associate Editor 
(Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)