‘Prima facie misconceived, erroneous’: HC stays trial court’s observations in order discharging Kejriwal in liquor ‘scam’

The CBI has challenged the trial court’s February 27 order, submitting that it is “illegal on the face of it”. The CBI has alleged that the court conducted a “mini-trial”, read the evidence “piecemeal”, and disregarded the conspiracy that the agency had “duly established”.

While discharging all the accused, the trial court had ordered departmental action against the IO for the “tainted investigation”, and for implicating an Excise Department official without evidence.

In its revision plea, the CBI has described the trial court’s observation as “shocking to say the least”, and sought an immediate stay on it.

Justice Sharma granted the stay ex parte, after no one appeared on behalf of the accused persons.

“…Certain factual discrepancies pointed out in the impugned order, the observations made by the learned Trial Court regarding statements of the witnesses and the approvers, at the stage of charge itself, prima facie appear erroneous, and need consideration when viewed in the background of well-settled law on charge and conspiracy, as to whether such observations could have been made at the stage of charge itself,” Justice Sharma recorded, taking into consideration CBI’s argument.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the CBI, also asked the court to issue appropriate directions to ensure that the trial in the money laundering case being prosecuted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is not impacted by the discharge of the accused persons in the predicate offence. An ED case must necessarily stem from a predicate offence; if an accused has been discharged or acquitted, the ED case cannot be sustained.

The HC accepted the CBI’s request and requested the trial court dealing with the charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in the case stemming from the CBI’s case against the 23 accused “to adjourn the case to a date, later than the date fixed before this Court, and await the outcome of the present case”.

The HC also issued notice to the 23 accused seeking their reply to CBI’s revision plea. It will hear the matter next on March 16.

Mehta argued that appreciation of corroborative evidence to substantiate approver statements is not required at the stage of framing of charges or discharge. There is “enough substantial corroborative material which cannot be brushed away”, he submitted.

“Each and every aspect of conspiracy has been shown in chargesheet and supplementary chargesheets… I have not seen such meticulous evidence being collected by an agency,” Mehta said.

He pointed to a judgment by Justice Sharma herself, in which the judge had observed: “The law does not require corroboration at this stage; it only requires material sufficient to raise a strong suspicion and justify initiation of trial against the accused.” (Aryan Bajpai versus State of NCT of Delhi, December 2025).

The revision petition asking that the discharge of Kejriwal and Sisodia be set aside has argued that the CBI has established a “chain of conspiracy” in which the two leaders formulated a “tailor-made policy” to favour the so-called South Group who would pay “upfront money” to fund the AAP’s 2022 Assembly election campaign in Goa.

The trial court order repeatedly states that at the stage of framing of charges, “suspicion must be founded on material placed on record, and not on conjecture or reverse inference”.