"Delhi High Court Deliberates on Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail Plea in Liquor Policy Case"

"Delhi High Court Deliberates on Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail Plea in Liquor Policy Case"

 Meanwhile, in a ruling that deals a blow to the ongoing investigation into Delhi's licensing policy for liquor, the Delhi High Court has reserved its ruling on bail plea filed by Arvind Ki.Maric, Chief Minister of Delhi.

 After vigorous hearings from both the defence and prosecution law courts,the case is now at this stage. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)is investigating allegations that Kejriwal and other officials made illegal gains in formulating and carrying outlet policy, which has been the object of intense Public Attentions. The prosecution team at the trial accused Kejriwal of being an accessory to corrupt arrangements while the defense team counter-argued that these are politically motivated charges and there is no solid proof. By their accounts,the Crown's evidence demonstrates a thorough misunderstanding of the facts upon which it founded its case against Kejriwal. The Chief Minister has assisted fully with this investigation; he should not be held in custody against letter and spirit of the law or to placate whims for further administration. At the same time, however, the CBI stressed the severity of the charges and their considerable potential for Damage Unless strict safeguards are instituted it seems likely that the enquiry would be obstructed in one way or another. Evidence collated so far, they maintain, indicates flagrant infringement of legal and ethical standards which warrants close consideration by the court. 

Now that the high court has reserved its ruling all attentions are focused on what the outcome will be and, should a decision go against him, how this will affect both Delhi politics and set new standards of accountability for government throughout the country. This ruling will be watched intently by all levels of thought and by all who count in the political world, as it has a lot riding on it for the future course of this high-profile issue. This development brings into bold relief the ongoing conflict between legal procedure and political implications, bringing to the fore the delicate balancing act that the courts must perform in cases involving prominent public personages and sensitive issues.