Liquor Policy: Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment In Manish Sisodia's Bail Pleas In ED, CBI Cases

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved judgment in the bail pleas filed by Former Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia in the money laundering and corruption cases related to the alleged liquor policy scam.

Sisodia is presently under judicial custody in the money laundering and corruption cases related to the alleged excise policy scam.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reserved the order after hearing Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur appearing for Sisodia.

Zoheb Hossain, special counsel appeared for ED. CBI was represented by SPP Ripudaman Bharadwaj.

Krishnan submitted that while dismissing Sisodia's second bail plea, there was no basis for the trial court to observe that there was a “concerted effort” on part of the accused persons to delay trial.

“I ask myself, what is the basis of this? In every trial various people may move applications. Where is the concept of concert? And how can that concept of concert be attributed to me?,” Krishnan said.

He further said that there is absolutely no progress in the trial and in fact, the stage of trial has not been reached yet.

Adding to his submissions, Mathur contended: “I don't know how the application to meet my wife physically, which was allowed by way of custody parole, how will that delay trial. Numbers are thrown at all of us but nowhere does it show how seeking permission to sign a cheque or affidavit or vakalatnama, to meet my ailing wife, all these allowed but how have I contributed to the delay?”

Mathur further said that the aspect of arrests taking place in the case even now, was given a go-by by the trial court.

He also said that the right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with long incarceration, depending on the nature of allegations, should be read into Section 439 of CrPC and Section 45 of PMLA.

Opposing the bail plea, Hossain submitted that the Supreme Court in its decision to deny bail plea of Sisodia did not take away the discretion of the trial court to decide the matter on merits.

“It is not an automatic route to bail merely because time is taken to commence trial. The trial court, given that it is directly seized of the matter on a daily basis, would be the best judge if there has been a delay or not….Almost 95 applications filed by 31 accused at the stage of section 207, these are only piecemeal applications,” he said.

Hossain further contended that more than 250 petitions have been filed so far in the excise scam by various accused persons.

However, the contention was opposed by Mathur who submitted that the window given to Sisodia by the Supreme Court was if the trial proceeds at snail's pace and that the word “on merits” is not on merits of the case but on merits of his application showing that there has been a delay.

“We cannot use these words out of context. This is on the merits of the application, whether it's on snail's pace or not,” Mathur said.

Opposing bail plea on merits, Hossain submitted that Sisodia was part of the conspiracy to ensure that AAP makes wrongful gains in the form of bribes, and in the process ensure additional benefits to the persons who gave bribes. 

“Sisodia was part of GoM, he was member of highest body of the party, was holding position of Deputy CM and was minister in charge of excise department…. We have digital evidences and statements of bribe givers that he reached to them….Wholesale business were given to private entities who were bribe givers and were given increased wholesale profit margins, without any rationale,” he said.

He further said that Sisodia also directed Dinesh Arora to work with Vijay Nair in the alleged scam.

Hossain said: “There is one phone which he changed in July 2022, the day the LG complained and it was covered in media. It has never been produced. He simply says it was damaged. But even the damaged phone he didn't produce.”

He added: “His actions enabled indo spirits to earn Rs. 192 crores of profits when the policy was in force. No reason to increase the wholesale profit margin.”

CBI's SPP adopted the submissions made by ED and opposed Sisodia's bail plea in the corruption case.

After hearing the parties, Justice Sharma reserved the order in both bail applications.

Sisodia has approached court challenging the trial court orders dismissing his second bail pleas in both CBI and ED cases on April 30.

While denying him bail in the money laundering case, the trial court rejected Sisodia's plea that the proceedings in the case have been delayed or that the case is proceedings at a snail's pace. It was also observed the so­ called delay is clearly on account of reasons attributable to the AAP leader himself.

Sisodia was denied bail by the trial court, Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court in both ED and CBI cases. The Supreme Court had also dismissed Sisodia's review petitions against the denial of bail. His curative petitions have also been dismissed.

The Apex Court, while dismissing his bail plea, had last year said that he can file a fresh bail plea before the trial court if the trial proceeds at a snail's pace.

Manish Sisodia was first arrested by CBI and ED on February 26 and March 9 last year respectively.

In the FIR registered by the CBI, Sisodia and others have been accused of being instrumental in 'recommending' and 'taking decisions' regarding the 2021-22 excise policy, “without the approval of competent authority with an intention to extend undue favours to the licensee post tender”.

The central agency has also claimed that the AAP leader was arrested because he gave evasive replies and refused to cooperate with the investigation, despite being confronted with evidence.

On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate has alleged that the excise policy was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12 percent to certain private companies, although such a stipulation was not mentioned in the minutes of meetings of Group of Ministers (GoM).

The agency has also claimed that there was a conspiracy that was coordinated by Vijay Nair and other individuals along with South Group to give extraordinary profit margins to wholesalers. Nair was acting on behalf of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, according to the agency.

Sisodia's bail applications in both cases were rejected by Special Judge MK Nagpal (now transferred) on March 31 and April 28 last year. The Delhi High Court then denied bail to Sisodia in both cases after which he approached the Supreme Court challenging both these verdicts.

On October 30 last year, the Supreme Court refused to grant bail to the former Delhi deputy chief minister.

Title: Manish Sisodia v. ED, CBI