Sanchayita Lahkar

The Delhi High Court, Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, on Monday, observed that a trial court's findings while discharging AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and all other accused in the Delhi liquor policy case — including its assessment of witness and approver statements at the charge stage itself — were prima facie erroneous and warranted fresh consideration. The court, hearing a revision petition by the Central Bureau of Investigation, stayed adverse remarks made against the investigating officer and directed the trial court handling the connected money laundering proceedings to await the outcome of the present matter.

The petitioner, the Central Bureau of Investigation, filed a revision petition seeking setting aside of an order passed by the learned Special Judge in a matter titled “Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kuldeep Singh and Ors.” and for calling for the entire case record. The order under challenge had discharged all 23 accused persons in the FIR. When the matter was taken up, no one appeared for the respondents, though the order records that they had been duly served and proof of service had been filed by the CBI.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Homebuyers Cannot Approach Consumer Forum After Electing RERA Remedy For Same Cause Of Action

The learned Solicitor General addressed arguments for setting aside the impugned order and on the application seeking stay. It was contended that the trial court had ignored crucial and admissible evidence placed before it through the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheets, and had conducted a full-fledged trial at the stage of charge instead of taking only a prima facie view. It was further argued that certain observations in the impugned order were factually incorrect, contrary to the statements of witnesses and approvers recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, and that remarks against the Investigating Officer were uncalled for. The petitioner also referred to the connected case under the PMLA, 2002, as the present matter was stated to be the predicate offence.

After hearing arguments on behalf of the CBI and noting the absence of the respondents despite service, the Court recorded its prima facie view on the impugned order and the stage at which the trial court had made its findings. The Court stated, “this Court is of the opinion that 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.”

While considering the connected proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court took note of the submission that the impugned order had also made observations concerning the Enforcement Directorate case connected with the matter, and that the present FIR was stated to be the predicate offence. The order records that an appropriate arrangement was required so that the connected proceedings would not be affected by the impugned order.

On the request for stay of the remarks made against the Investigating Officer, the Court recorded a separate prima facie view. It stated, “this Court takes note of the fact that such scathing remarks recorded in the impugned order, and the reasons given for passing such remarks including, concluding that the investigating officer has abused his official position to conduct unfair investigation, are prima facie foundationally misconceived especially when made at the stage of charge itself.” The Court further stated, “Needless to say, at this stage, the reasons given for passing such remarks are also under challenge in the present petition and need consideration as opined by this Court.”

The order is confined to issuing notice, calling for the record, regulating the connected proceedings, and staying the observations limited to the Investigating Officer till the next date of hearing. The Court did not enter into a final adjudication on the merits of the discharge order in the present order.

The Court directed: “In these circumstances, issue notice to all 23 respondents, by all permissible modes, including electronically, as also through the concerned Investigating Officer, returnable on the next date of hearing. Dasti as well. Reply, if any, be filed by the respondents before the next date of hearing, with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Refers NCR Advocates' Chamber Allotment Eligibility Question To Portfolio Committee

“Let the Trial Court Record, in digitized form, be called for, at least two days prior to the next date of hearing. List on 16.03.2026.”

“In the meantime, the learned Trial Court, where the proceedings regarding the connected case filed by the Directorate of Enforcement are pending, is requested to adjourn the case to a date, later than the date fixed before this Court, and await the outcome of the present case. In view of the aforesaid, the observations limited only qua the Investigating Officer are stayed, till the next date of hearing, including the direction recommending departmental action against him.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG, Mr. D.P. Singh, ASG, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Manu Mishra, Ms. Garima Saxena, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Ms. Tanvi Jain, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr. Imaan Khera and Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocates.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 134/2026; CRL.M.A. 6854/2026; CRL.M.A. 6853/2026
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma