Arvind Kejriwal's Bail : Live Updates From Supreme Court

ASG: Wrong provision was copied by the court

J Kant: So long as it's traceable to another provision..

ASG: There is a typo mistake by court. Mistakenly written.

J Kant: Is it necessary to examine s.41(2)?

ASG: No, but I can demonstrate that it also applies.

ASG: Even if your Lordships hold against me, that S.41 will apply, we have explained circumstances. Necessity etc. fades into insignificance because of court's order

J Kant: What about S.41(2)?

J Kant: S.41(1) you say is not applicable. We have understood. Then you say (a) to (e) are comprehensive, and the attributes of (b),(c),(d) are...

ASG: His case is S.41 CrPC is violated. S.41 divides section into 2 parts - first part is 7 years...our case is (b) will apply...without warrant, you can arrest for proper investigation of offense, or...our case is his case falls under (b),(c),(d)

ASG: For statutory provisions, you have to go apply for regular bail. Fundamental right is curtailed if it's pursuant to order of court. There is no breach of any constitutional provision or FR. Then a writ does not lie for challenging arrest.

ASG: when there is a warrant, requirement of Art. 22 is not required to be strictly followed. Even otherwise, we have followed. It's not their case ground were not supplied. Reasons to believe is statutory requirement, not constitutional

ASG: when arrest is made pursuant to court order, fundamental rights are not applicable

ASG: Our application was allowed by the Special Court. Permission was given and warrant was issued. Thereafter, we arrested.

ASG: This order of Special Court dt. 25.06.2024 is not challenged in any proceedings.