New Delhi, Sep 12 (IANS): The Supreme Court will pronounce on Friday its verdict on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and seeking bail in the corruption case linked to the alleged liquor policy scam.

As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a bench presided over by Justice Surya Kant will pronounce its judgment on September 13.

Last week, the Bench, also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, reserved its decision after hearing the oral arguments advanced by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo, and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, who appeared on behalf of the CBI.

During the hearing, Singhvi contended that the CBI did not arrest CM Kejriwal for two years but made an "insurance arrest in a hurry" to prevent his release in the money laundering case. The CBI arrested Kejriwal for "his non-cooperation and evasive replies" but there were several apex court judgments that held that cooperation with the probe should not mean that the accused should incriminate himself and confess to the offences alleged, he said.

Singhvi added that Kejriwal, a constitutional functionary holding the position of Delhi Chief Minister, satisfied the triple test for grant of bail. “He is not a flight risk, he will turn up to answer the questions of the investigative agency, and cannot tamper with documents, running into lakhs of pages, and digital evidence after two years," he submitted.

On the other hand, the central agency apprehended that the release of CM Kejriwal would turn many witnesses "hostile" and urged the apex court to not release him on bail. ASG Raju said that many candidates of the AAP in the Goa Assembly election came forward to give their statements to the central agency only after CM Kejriwal was arrested.

"They (witnesses) will turn hostile if your lordships release Kejriwal on bail," he argued. He argued that CM Kejriwal’s plea for bail should be remanded back to the trial court and he should not have petitioned the Delhi High Court for bail in the first instance. The ASG submitted that arrest is a part of investigation and ordinarily, an investigating officer will not require any permission from a court to make an arrest. "But, in the present case, there was an order of the court granting the power (to arrest)," he said. He added that when an arrest is made pursuant to an order of the court, an accused cannot take a plea of violation of fundamental rights.

Recently, the top court allowed bail pleas of senior AAP leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, BRS leader K. Kavitha, and AAP's former communication-in-charge Vijay Nair in the excise policy case.

In his special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convenor challenged his arrest and subsequent remand orders while also pressing for bail in the corruption case. On the other hand, seeking dismissal of CM Kejriwal's plea, the CBI said that the AAP supremo was simply attempting to politically sensationalise the matter, despite repeated orders passed by various courts being prima facie satisfied with the commission of the offences, for which cognisance already has been taken.

The agency said that while CM Kejriwal "does not hold any ministerial portfolio in Government National Capital Territory (GNCT) of Delhi, all decisions of the government, as well as the party, are taken on his concurrence and directions", adding that these include not only the decisions in Delhi but also throughout the country where AAP has a presence.

The Supreme Court, on July 12, ordered CM Kejriwal to be released on interim bail in connection with the money laundering case lodged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). However, he was not able to walk out of jail since he was arrested by the CBI.

Meanwhile, a Delhi court on Wednesday extended till September 25 the judicial custody of CM Kejriwal, who was produced through video conferencing from Tihar Jail upon expiry of previously granted judicial custody.