Today, On 30th July, A Delhi court will hear the CBI charge sheet against Arvind Kejriwal in the Excise Policy case on August 12. The case involves allegations surrounding the implementation of Delhi’s excise policy. The court’s decision on this date will be significant for Kejriwal’s legal standing.
New Delhi: The Rouse Avenue Court, On Tuesday, scheduled August 12 for reviewing the supplementary chargesheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and five other individuals related to the excise policy case.
Special Judge Kaveri Baweja postponed the hearing to allow CBI to present their submissions regarding the chargesheet. The CBI filed its final chargesheet on Monday, naming Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, Aam Aadmi Party leader Durgesh Pathak, businessman P Sarath Reddy, Vinod Chauhan, Ashish Mathur, and Amit Arora, according to CBI sources.
Read Also: BREAKING | Arvind Kejriwal Moves Sessions Court Against Summons
On the same day, the Delhi High Court reserved its decision on Kejriwal’s regular bail plea in the CBI case concerning the excise policy. During the proceedings, the CBI opposed the bail plea, labeling Kejriwal as the “sutradhar” (central figure) of the case.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna‘s bench reserved the order after hearing both parties’ arguments. CBI’s Special Counsel, DP Singh, informed the court that further investigation had revealed additional evidence against Kejriwal. The chargesheet, filed that day, included six names, including Kejriwal, though five had not been arrested.
The CBI informed the High Court that their investigation was completed swiftly, within a month, and that Kejriwal played a pivotal role in the excise policy scam. As head of the cabinet, Kejriwal signed the policy and circulated it to his colleagues, securing their signatures in a single day during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Additionally, the CBI counsel claimed that IAS officer C Aravind, under Manish Sisodia, testified that Vijay Nair delivered a copy of the excise policy for entry into the computer while Kejriwal present, indicating his direct involvement. The CBI traced Rs 44 crores related to the case sent to Goa, and according to Advocate DP Singh, Kejriwal instructed his candidates to focus on the elections without worrying about the funds.
CBI counsel DP Singh argued that while direct evidence might be lacking, witness testimonies, including those from three witnesses and 164 court statements, clearly indicate Kejriwal’s involvement. Singh emphasized that such evidence emerged only after Kejriwal’s arrest, as Punjab officers might not have come forward otherwise.
Singh also noted that after the issue gained media attention, CM Kejriwal sought ex post facto approval from the council of ministers. The CBI stated that although certain circumstances allow the High Court to hear bail applications directly, it should not be the first court for bail hearings. With the final chargesheet now filed, the CBI is ready for the trial to commence, according to Advocate DP Singh.
However, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Arvind Kejriwal, argued that the case represents an “insurance arrest.” He highlighted that Kejriwal had been granted bail three times in the ED case and pointed out that since Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI, there had been no new developments. Singhvi argued that the distinction between bail and writ petitions does not affect the case’s merit.
Singhvi stated that there is no direct evidence against Kejriwal, noting that the CBI frequently refers to Vijay Nair as a central figure, although Nair had been granted bail in the CBI case long ago. He criticized the CBI’s portrayal of Kejriwal as the “Sutradhar” of the excise policy, arguing that they fail to acknowledge the broader context. Singhvi emphasized that the policy was the result of deliberations by nine inter-ministerial committees and published in July 2021 after a year of discussions.
Singhvi argued that while Kejriwal signed the excise policy, so did 15 other individuals, including the Lieutenant Governor. By the CBI’s logic, the Lieutenant Governor and the 50 bureaucrats, including the Chief Secretary, should also be considered co-accused. Singhvi clarified that he does not wish to implicate the Lieutenant Governor but questioned the CBI’s selective targeting.
Singvi challenged the CBI to produce a statement not based on hearsay, asserting that after two years of investigation, the case relies on presumptions and hypotheses rather than concrete evidence. Earlier today, the CBI filed a chargesheet against Kejriwal and others in the matter.
Recently, the Delhi High Court reserved its order on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the CBI in connection with the excise policy case. The Court also reserved its decision on Kejriwal’s plea for interim bail.
Kejriwal approached the Delhi High Court, asserting that as the National Convenor of a National Political Party (Aam Aadmi Party) and the sitting Chief Minister of Delhi, he is facing gross persecution and harassment for wholly mala-fide and extraneous reasons. He sought regular bail in this case.
Kejriwal also challenged his arrest and the routine remand orders issued by the Trial Court. This writ petition heard by the High Court on July 2, and the matter listed for further hearing on July 17.