New Delhi, February 27 The 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:
* The prosecution's case does not even disclose the threshold of prima facie suspicion, let alone the "grave suspicion" mandated by established principles of criminal jurisprudence.
* The CBI's case was unable to withstand judicial scrutiny and stands discredited in its entirety.
* Due to the absence of any admissible evidence, the prosecution's case is legally infirm, unsustainable, and unfit to proceed further in law.
* The evidence establishes that the policy was the result 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's theory is reduced to conjecture.
* There is no apparent breach of restrictions relating to "related entities" or any other policy condition that could, by itself, attract criminal liability.
* The record further reveals an investigative approach to stitch together disparate fragments in order to create an impression of a vast and complex conspiracy, unsupported by legally admissible material.
* The 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 attempt to further connect such allegations to the Goa assembly elections, in order to project, layering, and utilization of alleged proceeds of crime, rests more on assumption than on legally sustainable material.
* The prosecution's case, as presented in the charge sheet, largely rests on surmises, conjectures, and inferential leaps unsupported by cogent material.
