Arguing for bail in the CBI case linked to Delhi's recently annulled liquor policy, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal today told the court that the central agency made an "insurance arrest" after realizing he might secure bail in the Enforcement Directorate case.

The Supreme Court had previously granted interim bail to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case, but he continues to be held in the CBI case. Should the Supreme Court grant him relief in this case as well, the Delhi Chief Minister will be released from prison after more than five months.

The CBI arrested Mr. Kejriwal on June 26. On August 5, the Delhi High Court upheld his arrest as legal, stating that the CBI had demonstrated that the AAP leader might influence witnesses.

In arguments before a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi described the situation as unprecedented. He highlighted that the Delhi Chief Minister had previously received relief twice under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and contended that the CBI’s actions amounted to an "insurance arrest."

The CBI, he said, had arrested Mr Kejriwal after two years. "Three court orders are in my favour. This is an insurance arrest, so that he can be kept in jail," Mr Singhvi said.

Mr. Singhvi argued that the Supreme Court needs to address three key questions: Is there a flight risk? Will he tamper with evidence? Will he influence witnesses?

He contended that the sole justification for the CBI's arrest was Mr. Kejriwal's lack of cooperation, a concern that has been addressed in previous judgments which state that an accused cannot be expected to incriminate themselves.

"Arvind Kejriwal is a constitutional functionary and cannot be a flight risk. There can't be tampering, there are lakhs of documents, five chargesheets have been filed. There is also no risk of influencing witnesses. The triple test for bail is in my favour," he said.

"This person was found fit for release twice, once by Supreme Court too even under higher threshold of Section 45 (of PMLA). I am the most captive interrogatee you can find, ever. Just for insurance you arrested! No substantial material was demonstrated before special judge to justify my arrest, grounds were vague," Mr Singhvi said.

At one point, Justice Kant said while the bench will hear both sides, "we are wondering how long we should hear in a bail matter, do ordinary mortals get this much time?" Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the CBI, said, "I want as much time as him (Singhvi), at least." Mr Singhvi responded, "I am glad my lordships pointed that out. I will take till 12 so we can finish by lunch."

The CBI's counsel questioned whether Mr. Singhvi was arguing for bail or challenging the arrest, asserting that the two issues should not be conflated.

"Triple test satisfied fully. Every other possible co-accused has been released. I am taking about same, Vijay Nair, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh and more," he said.

Mr Singhvi said multiple chargesheets have been filed. "Prolonged incarceration cannot be there, is the triple test satisfied? yes it is... all the judgments held on these points... in the Manish Sisodia judgment, the court held that in this particular case of excise policy, trial is impossible to finish."

Mr. Singhvi referenced the "snakes and ladders" analogy used by the Supreme Court when granting bail to Mr. Kejriwal’s party colleague, Sisodia, to illustrate the cycle of the petitioner being sent to different courts. He noted that the Supreme Court had aptly described the situation as "snakes and ladders."

In response to Mr. Kejriwal’s petition, the Additional Solicitor General argued that while the Delhi High Court had directed Mr. Kejriwal to seek bail from the lower court, he instead filed the petition directly before the high court.

"He approached the High court without going to the sessions court. This is my preliminary objection. On merits, trial court could have seen it first. The high court was made to see merits and it can only be in exceptional cases. In ordinary cases, sessions court has to be approached first.