NEW DELHI, Feb. 28 -- A Delhi court on Friday discharged former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the politically charged liquor policy case, pulling up the CBI by saying its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety. Within hours, the CBI challenged the order in the Delhi high court with officials saying the agency has flagged several points that were ignored and not considered at the framing-of-the-charge level by the special court. In a 549-page order, Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue court discharged the accused, stating that it had no hesitation to hold that CBI's material did not even disclose a prima facie case, let alone a grave suspicion. "This court has no hesitation in holding that the material placed on record does not disclose even a prima facie case, much less any grave suspicion, against any of the accused persons. Accordingly, Accused Nos 1-23 are discharged of all the offences alleged against them in the present case," special judge Jitendra Singh said. "The court has proved that Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and AAP are 'Kattar Imaandar'," the three-time chief minister said. While Kejriwal was in jail for six months in the case, Sisodia was behind bars for almost two years. The court said that the Excise Policy case, as sought to be projected by CBI, was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited to its entirety. It said that the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a speculative construct resting on conjecture and surmises and lacking any admissible evidence. The court said, ".the prosecution has failed to place any material which, even prima facie, suggests the the Delhi Excise Policy was manipulated, altered, or engineered to confer any undue or unlawful benefit upon any private individual or the so-called 'South Group'". Kejriwal and Sisodia along with 21 others, which also included several excise officials and party members, have been facing prosecution in the multi-crore excise policy cases, with both the CBI and ED alleging that the Delhi government's 2021-22 liquor policy was designed to favour certain licensees in exchange for kickbacks, allegedly routed into the Aam Aadmi Party's Goa campaign. The CBI's case alleges that the accused persons altered the policy in favour of an alleged lobby of liquor businessmen referred to as the "South Group". The court exonerated all the accused in the CBI's case, which was registered in August 2022 under Indian Penal Code sections pertaining to criminal conspiracy, cheating and causing disappearance of evidence, apart from sections punishable under The Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. Till July 2024, the CBI had filed a total of five chargesheets, wherein the first chargesheet named lower-level officials and businessmen, the fourth supplementary chargesheet named Kejriwal, alleging his direct involvement as a overarching conspirator of the now defunct policy. The ED's case, registered under sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the same year, probes a broader conspiracy involving hawala transfers and shell companies. The ED's case is currently pending before the Delhi high court wherein Kejriwal and Sisodia had moved a plea, challenging their prosecution in the absence of a sanction. Kejriwal was arrested by the ED in March 21, 2024, and later by the CBI. The Supreme Court granted him interim bail on May 10 to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections. He surrendered on June 2 as per court orders. He was later granted interim bail in both ED and CBI cases, with courts affirming the principle that "bail is the rule, jail is exception," and stressing importance of personal liberty in the absence of risk to public interest or judicial process. Elaborating on the specific role attributed by the prosecution on Kejriwal, the 18th accused, Special Judge Singh noted that the allegations against him could not be corroborated and were merely circumstantial; essentially based on a hearsay statement by another witness. The court said that no document or digital evidence had been produced to directly or indirectly connect Kejriwal with any alleged policy manipulation or illegal gratification. The order said, "There is no material to show his presence at any conspiratorial meeting or to indicate his knowledge of any unlawful arrangement. The attempt to implicate him rests on inference drawn from uncorroborated accomplice-like statement". The court noted that even the prosecution's approver, who claimed knowledge from the stage of the policy's formulation to the alleged utilisation of funds, has been silent about the role of Kejriwal in the purported conspiracy. Meanwhile, on the role of Sisodia, at the time the Deputy CM holding the Excise department portfolio, who the prosecution claims was the 'principal architect' and the 'controlling force' behind the alleged conspiracy, the court said that no evidence had come forth, showing any concealment or unilateral manipulation on Sisodia's end. The court said Sisodia abided by the relevant constitutional channels to incorporate all suggestions recommended by then Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal in the draft policy. The order said that evidence in fact indicated institutional participation rather an an individualised exercise of authority by him. "The record does not disclose prima facie material to show that A-8 (Sisodia) acted unilaterally or engineered any concealment manipulation in the formulation of the policy." Pulling up the prosecution for its investigative lapses and lack of any cogent evidence, the court also went on to recommend a departmental inquiry against the erring investigating officer for framing one of the accused, Kuldeep Singh, in the absence of any material against him. The court noted that Singh had been suspended from his job as a Deputy Commissioner in the Excise department due to his alleged role in the case. The court emphasised that contrary to CBI's case, evidence clearly established that the excise policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative exercise, undertaken after discussions with relevant stakeholders in accordance with law. Referring to the allegations of illicit funds allegedly being used in Goa assembly elections, the session court said, "To connect such allegations to the Goa Assembly elections, so as to project, layering, and utilisation of alleged proceeds of crime, rests more on inference and assumption than on legally sustainable material"....