New Delhi, Feb 27 Following are the key observations of the Delhi court on Friday while discharging former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case:
Prosecution case does not disclose even the threshold of prima facie suspicion, far less the "grave suspicion" mandated by settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.
The CBI case was unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stands discredited in its entirety.
Due to the absence of any admissible evidence, the prosecution case is rendered legally infirm, unsustainable, and unfit to proceed any further in law.
The evidence establishes that the policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative exercise, undertaken after engagement with relevant stakeholders and in adherence to the procedure prescribed under law.
In the absence of a tainted policy or demonstrably unlawful implementation, the prosecution theory is reduced to conjecture.
Found no apparent breach of restrictions relating to "related entities" or any other policy condition which could, by itself, attract criminal liability.
Record further reveals an investigative approach to stitch together disparate fragments so as to create an impression of a vast and complex conspiracy, unsupported by legally admissible material.
Investigation appears to have proceeded on a predetermined trajectory, implicating virtually every person associated with the formulation or implementation of the policy in order to lend an illusion of depth and credibility to an otherwise fragile narrative.
The endeavour to further connect such allegations to the Goa assembly elections, so as to project, layering, and utilisation of alleged proceeds of crime, rests more on assumption than on legally sustainable material.
Prosecution case, as presented in the charge sheet, rests largely on surmises, conjectures, and inferential leaps unsupported by cogent material.
