NEW DELHI: Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo Arvind Kejriwal, who is currently in jail in a corruption case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the alleged excise policy scam, got no respite from the Supreme Court on Wednesday as it refused to grant him interim bail. The apex court, however, issued a notice to the CBI and posted the matter for hearing on August 23.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued a notice to the CBI on the plea filed by Kejriwal against the Delhi High Court order upholding his arrest by the probe agency. "We are not granting any interim bail. We will issue notice," the bench told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal.

According to the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), irregularities were committed while modifying the excise policy and undue favors were extended to license holders. The excise policy was scrapped in 2022 after the Delhi lieutenant governor ordered a CBI probe into alleged irregularities and corruption involving the formulation and execution of the excise policy.

Kejriwal, who was arrested on March 21 by the ED in the Delhi excise policy case, had earlier secured a 21-day interim bail for campaigning for the Lok Sabha election, after which he had to return to jail.

The Delhi High Court had on August 5 upheld the arrest of the chief minister as legal and said there was no malice in the acts of the CBI, which demonstrated how Kejriwal could influence witnesses who could muster the courage to depose only after his arrest, following which he moved the apex court against the HC order.

Interestingly, Kejriwal had on July 12 secured bail from the apex court in the ED case, acknowledging that he had spent over 90 days in incarceration. However, he remains in judicial custody following his arrest by the CBI on June 26 in the same matter.

Last week, the apex court granted bail to another AAP leader, Manish Sisodia, in the cases registered by the CBI and the ED in the Delhi excise policy case after an incarceration of 17 months, as it noted that there was no utility in keeping Sisodia in jail in a case where there is no hope of trial ending anytime soon. The court also noted that continued incarceration impinges on his fundamental right to liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.