BREAKING - Delhi Court Extends Manish Sisodia's CBI Custody Till Monday, AAP Leader Calls CBI Interrogation 'Mental Harassment'

A Delhi Court on Saturday extended Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia's remand till Monday in the case filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging corruption relating to excise policy for the year 2021-22.

Special Judge MK Nagpal granted CBI two more days to question Sisodia. The AAP leader had been remanded to CBI custody on Monday for five days.

When Sisodia's remand was extended by the judge, he personally addressed the court and said that CBI was asking him same questions every day from morning till late in the evening. "It is a sort of mental harassment only," Sisodia said.

Sisodia also told the court the questioning for 8-10 hours daily amounts to third degree torture. The court told the CBI to not ask repeated questions to Sisodia and also directed it to conduct his medical tests at regular intervals. 

AAP leader and former Deputy CM of Delhi Manish Sisodia to be produced today before Rouse Avenue Court on the expiry of 5 days CBI remand in the alleged case of corruption relating to excise policy for the year 2021-22.#ManishSisodia #LiquorPolicy #CBI pic.twitter.com/lP5IGGL5nY

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) March 4, 2023

During the hearing, CBI earlier informed the court that Sisodia was interrogated daily till almost around 8 PM during the period of custody. It sought further three days remand to question the AAP leader, while alleging that Sisodia has not been co-operative 

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing Sisodia, argued that there was no difference between the circumstances prevalent earlier this week when he was remanded to CBI custody and now. "The ground can't be [that] we'll wait till he confesses. The inefficiency of agency can't be ground of remand. Today you've simple ground to say he is not answering, not cooperating. Nothing else," he said.

However, the judge said "missing documents" have to be traced and two names have been given in whose presence the CBI has to interrogate Sisodia, as per the agency. However, Krishnan said that can't be a ground for extending Sisodia's custody.

"Remand is exception. You've 15 days doesn't mean court will give 15 days. Court will have to see. What is the compelling reason?" contended Krishnan.

However, the court said that the agency's stand is that everything can't be written in application. "They've written in case diary," it added.

The judge also observed that if the argument is that remand was not required, then it should have been challenged before High Court. "That you haven't done," said the court.

However, Krishnan said when remand is granted second time, the test is higher and more scrutiny has to be done. 

On February 27, the trial court had remanded Sisodia to CBI's custody till March 4 which expired today. The special judge had acceded to CBI's request for five days custody to question Sisodia.

After the remand order, Sisodia had approached the Supreme Court against his arrest but the apex court refused to entertain his petition, observing that he has alternative remedies available before the High Court and asked him to pursue them instead of directly invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Sisodia was arrested on February 26 after an interrogation of more than 8 hours. He was named as an accused in the FIR. It is the case of the probe agency that there were alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy for the year 2021-22.

The CBI alleged that Sisodia was arrested as he gave evasive replies and did not cooperate with the investigation despite being confronted with evidence.

CBI had commenced a second round of questioning. Sisodia was earlier questioned on October 17 last year. Chargesheet in the matter was filed on November 25, 2022.

The CBI FIR states that Sisodia and others were instrumental in “recommending and taking decisions” regarding the excise policy 2021-22 “without approval of competent authority with an intention to extend undue favours to the licensee post tender.”