ON FEBRUARY 27, 2026, the Court of Shri Jitendra Singh, Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI), (MP/MLAs Cases), Rouse Avenue Court, passed an order discharging all 23 accused persons in the Delhi Excise Policy scam case, including Delhi’s former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal. The case was under CBI’s investigation, which had filed five chargesheets, including a main chargesheet and four supplementary chargesheets.
However, the Special Judge found that the evidence adduced in the chargesheets did not inspire “grave suspicion” against the accused, hence failing to establish a prima facie case.
‘If there is suspicion, but not grave suspicion, Court is empowered to discharge accused’
Relying on the law laid by the Supreme Court in Tuhin Kumar Bishwas @ Bumba v. State of West Bengal (2025) the Special Judge emphasised that a strong suspicion must be based on material capable of becoming evidence, absent which an accused can be discharged.
The order was passed at the stage of framing charges under Sections 227/228 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code. While Section 228 of the Code provided the procedure for the “framing of charges”, Section 227 provided for “discharge”. The Section states that if, upon considering the record of the case and the evidence presented therewith, and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasoning for doing so.
To put this in context, the hearing at this stage is only a preliminary hearing, and the arguments presented by the parties are merely opening arguments. The court is, at this stage, not required to undertake a detailed evaluation of the evidence or to test its probative value. The occasion for that comes later, when the trial begins. At this stage, the court is only required to determine whether a prima facie case to proceed with the trial is made out, based on the material presented before it.
