The plea was mentioned before a bench of Justices B D Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva who allowed the petition to be heard.
Advocate Sonia Mathur, appearing for CBI, told the court, "the trial court's order should be stayed because the investigation is on. We really need the documents."
Mathur submitted that CBI cannot give documents to somebody who is not related to the case.
She contended, "Witnesses are yet to be examined in the case, so, the documents are necessary for us."
A Special Court had yesterday directed the CBI to return some documents seized by it during the raids at Kumar's office on December 15 last year while disposing of an application filed by the Delhi government seeking release of the same.
In his order, Special Judge Ajay Kumar Jain had made stern observations on the manner in which searches were carried out and documents were seized.
The Judge had said there appears a deviation in the present case as CBI without conducting preliminary inquiry straight away registered the regular case on oral information.
"In this scenario when the public servants while discharging his official duty misuses its power and when there is no direct allegation of pecuniary advantage, then some sort of preliminary inquiry is required. However in present case the FIR is registered on oral information, thus proceedings initiated by CBI appear to be in haste," he said.
"However, in the present case despite one month of the seizure of the documents, CBI even could not categorically state that these documents relates to the present case," the court said directing the agency to release documents seized from the Secretariat during its searches.
Delhi Chief Minister Arving Kejriwal had renewed his attack at the Centre on the issue following the court's observation, demanding that PMO should give an explanation as CBI "reports to the PM".
CBI had raided office of Principal Secretary Rajendra Kumar on December 15, 2015 during which entry of officials and staff were banned on third floor from where Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal runs his government.
It had registered a corruption case against Kumar and others on the allegations that he had abused his official position by "favouring a particular firm in the last few years in getting tenders from Delhi government departments".
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
