Former Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia furnished Rs 50,000 surety bonds after discharge in the Delhi Excise Policy Case, with Rouse Avenue Court and Special Judge Jitendra Singh accepting the bonds to secure their presence if an appeal arises.
NEW DELHI: Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia have provided surety bonds following their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case. The Rouse Avenue court discharged 23 accused individuals, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, on February 27.
Special Judge Jitendra Singh accepted surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each from them. It is customary to furnish a surety bond upon discharge or acquittal in a criminal case to ensure the accused’s presence if an appeal is filed against the decision.
On February 27, the Rouse Avenue court discharged Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, and all other accused in connection with the excise policy case, stating there was insufficient evidence to proceed against them. However, the CBI has filed an appeal against this discharge. The High Court has indicated that it will stay comments made regarding the CBI team.
While discharging the accused, the court pointed out shortcomings in the CBI’s investigation.
It remarked,
“there was no evidence against accused Kuldeep Singh, then Deputy Excise Commissioner; still, he was made an accused by the CBI.”
The court recommended a departmental inquiry against the investigation officer, expressing surprise at Kuldeep Singh’s implication.
It said,
“No material found against you. I am surprised why you are implicated.”
When discharging Manish Sisodia, the court noted that the allegations did not withstand judicial scrutiny.
It stated,
“There is no criminal intent on his part. In this situation, the conspiracy theory cannot survive against him,”
Similarly, the court concluded that the central conspiratorial role against Arvind Kejriwal could not be sustained. The court also expressed the view that individuals holding constitutional positions should be protected from baseless implications. The absence of the confessional statement of the primary prosecution witness in the charge sheet was noted, as the entire case relied on that statement. The court highlighted that Dinesh Arora, the witness, had repeatedly altered his statements, which were also absent from the charge sheet.
The court inquired about the term “South Group,” asking, “Who coined this word?” and questioned whether the CBI could use this term had the charge sheet been filed in Chennai. The court referred to a U.S. court ruling that overturned a conviction for misusing a term against the accused.
Indicating that the investigation officer must accurately present facts that differ from the witness’s statements, the court stressed,
“Every citizen has the right to a fair trial,”
On February 12, the court reserved its ruling after hearing arguments from both the CBI and the accused, including Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others. At the time of the case’s filing, Kejriwal was serving as Delhi’s Chief Minister, while Sisodia was the Deputy Chief Minister.
The CBI had submitted the initial charge sheet in 2022, followed by supplementary charge sheets, alleging that Rs 100 crore was paid by the “South lobby” to influence the proposed Delhi excise policy in their favor. The case involved 23 accused persons charged by the CBI, including Kejriwal, Sisodia, K Kavitha, and several others.
The CBI asserted that the offense of conspiracy must be viewed in its entirety, maintaining that there is enough evidence to frame charges against the accused. ASG DP Singh, along with advocate Manu Mishra, represented the CBI, stating that sufficient material exists to support charges against all involved.
In contrast, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan argued that there was no basis for charges against Kejriwal. He claimed that the charge sheet against him was essentially a cut-and-paste job of earlier documents and emphasized that Kejriwal was performing his official duties.
Kejriwal was not mentioned in the initial charge sheet or the three subsequent ones, with his name appearing only in the fourth supplementary charge sheet, which also carried claims similar to those in previous filings.
The senior advocate also discussed the necessity of further investigation, stating that new evidence should conclusively demonstrate the accused’s guilt and be obtained with the court’s approval. He noted that the fourth charge sheet merely rehashed prior allegations with the intent to implicate someone fulfilling their official responsibilities.
The court requested the senior advocate to elaborate on the testimony of Magunta, who had become a witness for the prosecution, suggesting that someone had asked Magunta to pay money on behalf of Kejriwal. The senior advocate emphasized that no evidence linked Kejriwal to soliciting funds from the “South lobby.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE