A Delhi court has set August 12 as the date for considering the supplementary chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and five other individuals in the excise policy case. This decision was made by Special Judge Kaveri Baweja, who deferred the matter for the CBI to submit its arguments on the chargesheet.
The CBI's final charge sheet in the excise policy case, which includes Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party leader Durgesh Pathak, along with businessmen P Sarath Reddy, Vinod Chauhan, Ashish Mathur, and Amit Arora, was filed on Monday.
This development comes as the Delhi High Court has reserved its decision on Kejriwal’s bail plea in the same case. The CBI, during the hearing, strongly opposed the bail plea, labelling Kejriwal as the "sutradhar" (mastermind) of the case.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna's bench reserved the order after hearing arguments from both sides. CBI's Special Counsel, DP Singh, argued that new evidence against Kejriwal had emerged, showing his central role in the alleged excise policy scam.
According to Singh, Kejriwal, as the head of the cabinet, expedited the approval of the policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring his colleagues' signatures in a single day.
The CBI also presented testimonies from C Aravind, an IAS officer, who claimed that Vijay Nair, another central figure in the case, brought the excise policy document to be digitised in Kejriwal's presence.
This, according to the CBI, indicates Kejriwal’s direct involvement. Additionally, the investigation agency traced Rs 44 crores related to the case, reportedly sent to Goa, and claimed that Kejriwal assured his candidates about the availability of funds for elections.
DP Singh highlighted that witness testimonies, including those from three individuals and 164 statements recorded in court, pointed to Kejriwal’s involvement. He argued that such evidence surfaced only after Kejriwal’s arrest, as witnesses were previously reluctant to testify.
Singh further criticised Kejriwal’s post-incident actions, stating that he sought retrospective approval from the council of ministers after the controversy erupted in the media.
The CBI maintained that the High Court should not be the first court to hear bail applications in such cases. With the final charge sheet filed, the CBI expressed readiness for the trial to commence.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, countered by describing the case as an "insurance arrest." He noted that Kejriwal had already been granted bail three times in a related Enforcement Directorate (ED) case. Singhvi pointed out the lack of new developments since Kejriwal’s arrest by the CBI and argued that the case's merit was not affected by procedural distinctions between bail and writ petitions.
Singhvi emphasised the absence of direct evidence against Kejriwal. He highlighted that Vijay Nair, frequently cited by the CBI as a key figure, had already been granted bail in the CBI case.
Singhvi criticised the CBI’s portrayal of Kejriwal as the “sutradhar” of the excise policy, arguing that the policy was a result of extensive deliberations involving nine inter-ministerial committees and numerous officials over a year, eventually published in July 2021.
Singhvi argued that if Kejriwal were to be held accountable for signing the excise policy, then the Lieutenant Governor and several bureaucrats, including the Chief Secretary, should also be implicated. He questioned the CBI’s selective targeting and urged the agency to present concrete evidence rather than rely on hearsay and presumptions.
The Delhi High Court has reserved its order on Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest and seeking interim bail. The Delhi Chief Minister’s legal team argued that his arrest was motivated by malafide and extraneous considerations. Kejriwal’s plea for regular bail is now pending before the court.
Follow us
