The CBI has challenged the discharge order, detailing alleged conspiracy meetings, financial arrangements and policy manipulation in the Delhi excise policy case.
Date: 27 February 2026 | Location: New Delhi
The Central Bureau of Investigation has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the discharge of several accused, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, in the alleged Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22 corruption case. In its appeal, the agency has relied upon detailed allegations contained in the main and supplementary charge sheets filed before the trial court.
According to the prosecution’s case in FIR No. RC0032022A0053 dated 17.08.2022, registered by CBI/ACB, New Delhi, certain public servants of the Excise Department of GNCTD, in conspiracy with private individuals and liquor businessmen, allegedly manipulated the formulation and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22 to secure unlawful pecuniary advantage. The offences invoked include Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The CBI has alleged that in May/June 2021, a meeting was held at Gauri Apartments near Claridges Hotel, Delhi, at the instance of A-3. It is stated that approver PW-20, Dinesh Arora, A-4, A-5 and others attended. During this meeting, discussions allegedly took place regarding securing 7–10 retail zones under the new excise policy. A-3 is said to have introduced PW-20 as his close associate who would coordinate excise-related matters in Delhi.
Another meeting is alleged to have taken place between 18–20 June 2021 at ITC Kohenoor, Hyderabad, attended by the same persons. The prosecution claims that during this meeting it was discussed that 20–30 crores would be sent by A-4 to A-3 in Delhi, with PW-20 coordinating the transfer. Hotel records have been cited to establish their presence during this period.
It is further alleged that wholesale distributorships of M/S Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and M/S DIAGEO in Delhi were to be allotted to M/S Indospirits (linked to A-7) and M/S Brindco Sales Private Limited (M/S BSPL of A-9), enabling them to earn a 12 percent wholesale margin on Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The alleged “upfront money” of 20–30 crores was purportedly to be adjusted through business arrangements.
The charge sheet states that a 65 percent partnership of A-5 in M/S Indospirits was to be secured. Additionally, 6 percent out of the 12 percent margin of M/S BSPL was allegedly to be returned via credit notes to retail zones controlled by A-4 and later shared equally between A-4 and A-3 after repayment. PW-20 was allegedly assured a 25 percent share in M/S Indospirits, though no such share was ultimately granted.
The agency has also claimed that between July and September 2021, 20–30 crores were transferred in cash through hawala channels to A-3 and his associates.
The policy, which came into force on 05.07.2021, was officially described as an effort to curb monopoly and cartelization by separating the roles of manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer. Retail zones were to be allotted through e-tender, with a Tender Evaluation Committee constituted to scrutinize bids. Twenty zones were awarded in the first round, while twelve were re-tendered, in which M/S KGRL reportedly emerged as the highest bidder for certain zones, leading to issuance of letters of award with approval of the then Deputy Chief Minister.
The trial court, in its order dated 27.02.2026 in CBI Case No. 56/2022 titled CBI vs. Kuldeep Singh & Others before the Special Judge (PC Act) at Rouse Avenue Court Complex, discharged all 23 accused, observing that the voluminous charge sheet suffered from significant lacunae and lacked sufficient evidentiary support to establish a prima facie case.
Challenging these findings, the CBI has argued before the Delhi High Court that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the material collected during investigation. With the matter now pending before the High Court, further judicial scrutiny will determine whether charges are to be framed or the discharge upheld in the high-profile excise policy case.
