Court raps CBI for 'Premeditated and Choreographed' probe
In a blistering critique that struck at the very heart of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) conduct, Special Judge Jitendra Singh dismantled the agency's probe into the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, characterizing it as a "pre-meditated and choreographed exercise".
The 549-page order, which discharged all twenty-three accused on February 27, 2026, concluded that the allegations were not the result of an objective investigation but were instead framed to fit a "preconceived narrative".
The court accused the agency of a "calculated stratagem" and "anticipatory manipulation" designed to protect investigators rather than uncover the truth.
Specifically, the judge highlighted a "troubling" practice where the CBI placed high-ranking officials in the "suspect" column while simultaneously citing them as prosecution witnesses. This was described as a deliberate move to keep the narrative fluid, allowing the agency to preserve the option of implicating those individuals later if their initial version failed to withstand judicial scrutiny.
The judge recorded "serious displeasure" over the CBI’s treatment of "approver" witnesses, noting with alarm that the agency recorded the statement of key approver Dinesh Arora as many as seven times. These repeated re-recordings over nearly one and a half years were seen as an effort to "fill gaps" and "artificially weave missing links" after a pardon had already been granted.
The court warned that such practices risk converting the judicial mechanism of pardon into an "instrument for narrative construction rather than truth discovery".
Further exposing the "premeditated" nature of the probe, the court noted that the CBI’s central theory-that a 12% wholesale margin was engineered for "huge profits" to recoup bribes-was disproved by its own witnesses, who testified that the margin was actually structurally inadequate and often loss-making.
The agency’s reliance on "pauti" (loose, pencil-written sheets) from Angadiya firms was also rejected, with the judge ruling that such detachable scraps cannot be used to fasten criminal liability.
The order went as far as recommending departmental proceedings against the erring investigating officer for framing a public servant as "accused number 1" despite a total absence of incriminating material.
The judge concluded that by scrutinizing political volunteers and campaign logistics without evidence of a standalone crime, the agency had strayed into the exclusive jurisdiction of the Election Commission. Ultimately, the court found that like a "pack of cards," the entire prosecutorial superstructure collapsed once its inadmissible and speculative foundation was unsettled.
The judge concluded the order by invoking Martin Luther King Jr., stating, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," further underscoring that the entire prosecutorial superstructure was built upon "conjecture rather than concrete evidence.
