Supreme Court Denies Bail To Former Delhi Dy CM Manish Sisodia In Delhi Excise Policy Scam Case; Directs To Fast Track Trial

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 30) refused to grant bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia who is facing money laundering and corruption charges over alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped liquor policy in the national capital. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader has been in custody since February of this year and is being investigated by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).This verdict was delivered by a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti that heard Sisodia’s pleas against the Delhi High Court denying him bail in both the CBI and ED cases. The apex court issued notice in his petitions in July and reserved the judgment earlier this month."Legal questions have been answered in a limited way. In the analysis, there are certain aspects, which we said are doubtful. But one aspect, with regard to transfer of money, Rs 338 crores, is tentatively established. We have therefore dismissed the application for bail," Justice Khanna said today, while pronouncing the order. He continued, "We are dismissing the application for bail, but we have made one pointed observation which is that they have assured that the trial will be concluded within six to eight months. So within three months, if the trial proceeds sloppily or slowly, he'll be entitled to file an application for bail."Also Read - Allegation That Liquor Group Paid Rs 100 Crores To Manish Sisodia Debatable; But Few Distributors Made Profits Of Rs 338 Crores: Supreme Court In Bail OrderOral ArgumentsEarlier this month, Singhvi, appearing for the embattled legislator, argued that no money trail directly implicating Sisodia, a sitting legislative assembly member and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, has been unearthed. No evidence, he further argued, linked Sisodia with the independent offence of money laundering in Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Regarding the controversy surrounding the liquor policy, Singhvi argued that the new policy, which was a collective institutional decision aimed at breaking the cartelisation prevalent among private manufacturers - had increased revenues and limited the unreasonable and exorbitant profits earned by wholesalers. The senior counsel also stressed Sisodia's minimal flight risk and his incapacity to influence witnesses, in support of the contention that the criteria for granting bail had been met.During the hearing, the Supreme Court, among other things, questioned the non-inclusion of the political party allegedly benefitting from the alleged excise policy scam. This inquiry, which the court later clarified was meant to only be a legal question regarding the culpability of suspected co-conspirators, led to a barrage of media reports claiming that the Enforcement Directorate was planning to arraign Aam Aadmi Party as one of the accused. When asked by the press for a statement, Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju categorically stated that no one would be spared if evidence against them is discovered by the central agencies. In the course of the marathon hearing, the court asked the agencies a number of other important questions regarding the investigations over Sisodia's role in the alleged financial irregularities in the framing and implementation of the Delhi liquor policy.On a previous occasion, ASG Raju told the bench that the Enforcement Directorate is 'contemplating' making the Aam Aadmi Party an accused in the money laundering case and invoking Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to probe into the aspect of vicarious liability of the political party in connection with the liquor scam. Besides this, he reiterated the seriousness of the offence allegedly committed by Sisodia, pointing to the rank he held as the deputy chief minister, holding 18 portfolios, with exclusive charge of the excise policy, and claiming that there is 'sufficient' evidence of his involvement in money-laundering activities. The sudden and unexplained increase of the wholesalers' profit margin under the excise policy from 5 percent to 12 percent, ASG Raju said, had caused massive losses to not only the public exchequer but also the consumers. This additional profit margin is also being considered as proceeds of crime, the law officer told the bench. Further, the additional solicitor-general claimed that Sisodia had tampered with evidence, referring, among other things, to a mobile phone belonging to the former deputy chief minister that has allegedly not yet been recovered. "Even if they are prima facie entitled to bail, on grounds of tampering with evidence, it ought to be denied."After the law officer's submissions, Justice Khanna questioned the central agencies about the delay in the trials. In neither the CBI, nor the ED case has the arguments on charges begun. The judge categorically said that Sisodia cannot be kept behind bars ad infinitum, and that the arguments ought to have...

Supreme Court Denies Bail To Former Delhi Dy CM Manish Sisodia In Delhi Excise Policy Scam Case; Directs To Fast Track Trial

Awstika Das

Tags