Arvind Kejriwal's Bail Verdict : Live Updates From Supreme Court

J Bhuyan: It appears only after TC granted regular bail to appellant in ED case, that CBI became active and sought custody. It didn't feel need to arrest for over 22 months. Such action raises serious question on arrest itself. A view may be taken

J Bhuyan: On necessity and timing of arrest, I have a definite point of view. Therefore, this separate opinion, while concurring with the view that appellant should be released. CBI's appearance raises more questions than it answers

J Kant: Appellant will not make any public comment on merits of the case. Conditions imposed in ED matter shall apply in this case also. He shall fully cooperate with TC.

J Kant: We do not deem necessary at this stage to relegate appellant to TC. Criminal appeal as challenging legality to arrest, we have declined. As regards bail, we have allowed appeal. HC set aside. Directed to be released on bail.

J Kant: Completion of trial unlikely to occur in immediate future. Dealt with prosecution's apprehension on tampering. Rejecting those, we have concluded...appellant satisfies test for bail. We order accordingly.

#BREAKING Supreme Court grants bail to Arvind Kejriwal in the CBI case.

J Kant: Courts would inhere towards liberty of person, save and except when person is likely to...we have discussed Art.21. On facts, we have pointed out...4 supplementary CS have been filed. We are informed TC has taken cognizance.

J Kant: Appellant's arrest does not suffer from illegality. On bail, we have discussed briefly. Basic principle is...issue is of liberty...integral to sensitized judicial process. Prolonged incarceration amounts to unjust deprivation of liberty.

J Kant: We dont find any merit in contention that CBI didnt comply with S.41A CrPC. Further, S.41(1) opens with expression...where Magistrate has issued order...variables and conditions section would seize to apply...

J Kant: No impediment in arresting person already in custody. We have noted that CBI in their applciation recorded reasons as to why they deemed necessary. There is no violation of S.41A(iii)