Delhi Court Discharges Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 Others in Excise Policy Case; Pulls Up CBI

Date:

A Delhi court on Friday discharged former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia and 21 other accused in the alleged 2021–22 Delhi excise policy scam.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to establish a prima facie case. The court discharged all 23 accused named in the chargesheet.

Court Finds No Prima Facie Case

The court noted serious gaps in the CBI’s investigation. It observed that the voluminous chargesheet lacked supporting evidence. According to the judge, several portions of the chargesheet did not align with witness statements. The court described certain averments as misleading.

The judge also pointed out internal contradictions in the prosecution’s conspiracy theory. These inconsistencies, the court held, weakened the very foundation of the case.

Findings Against Allegations on Sisodia

The CBI had alleged that Manish Sisodia played a central role in formulating and implementing the excise policy. However, the court found no evidence linking him to any criminal act. It also recorded that the agency failed to recover any material connecting him to the alleged offence.

The court concluded that the CBI had not made out a prima facie case against Sisodia.

Observations on Kejriwal’s Implication

The court held that investigators implicated Arvind Kejriwal without cogent material. It stated that authorities cannot attribute involvement in a conspiracy without foundational evidence or supporting statements.

The judge emphasised that such implication, especially against a constitutional functionary, must rest on credible material. In its absence, the prosecution cannot sustain the allegation.

Primary Accused and Internal Gaps

The court also expressed surprise at the designation of Kuldeep Singh as Accused No. 1. It observed that the record did not contain material to justify such classification.

Further, the court directed initiation of a departmental inquiry against the CBI’s Investigating Officer.

Background of the Case

The Delhi Government introduced the excise policy in 2021 to reform the liquor trade and increase revenue. Authorities later withdrew the policy following allegations of irregularities.

Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena ordered a CBI probe. The CBI and Enforcement Directorate alleged that the policy conferred undue benefits on private entities and caused loss to the public exchequer.

The CBI arrested Sisodia on February 26, 2023. The ED arrested him on March 9, 2023. Investigators claimed he took decisions without approval from the competent authority and extended undue favours to licensees.

The agency arrested Kejriwal on June 26, 2024, while he was already in ED custody. The Supreme Court later granted him bail in the CBI case.

Sisodia spent around 530 days in custody. Kejriwal remained in jail for about 156 days across two separate periods before securing relief.

Accused Discharged

Those discharged include:

Kuldeep Singh, Narender Singh, Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally, Arun Pillai, Mootha Gautam, Sameer Mahendru, Manish Sisodia, Amandeep Singh Dhall, Arjun Pandey, Butchibabu Gorantla, Rajesh Joshi, Damodar Prasad Sharma, Prince Kumar, Arvind Kumar Singh, Chanpreet Singh, K Kavitha, Arvind Kejriwal, Durgesh Pathak, Amit Arora, Vinod Chauhan, Ashish Chand Mathur and Sarath Reddy.

Manish Sisodia: Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John, Advocate Vivek Jain
Arvind Kejriwal: Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, Advocate Mudit Jain

spot_img

Share post:

Popular

More like this
Related

Supreme Court Acquits Former Clerk in Bribery Case

The Supreme Court has stressed that Bribery Demand Proof...

Supreme Court Examines Shiv Sena Symbol Dispute

The Supreme Court has raised a key question in...

Supreme Court Upholds Excess Pay Recovery From NIT Calicut Teachers

The Supreme Court has upheld the Recovery of Excess...

Higher Marks Cannot Cure Lack of Essential Qualification: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an Essential Recruitment...