Manish Sisodia's Bail Plea: ''You Can't Keep Someone Behind Bars Infinitely; When Will Charges Be Framed?' Supreme Court Asks ED, CBI

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) about the delay in the trials that former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia is facing in the Delhi excise policy scam case. Sisodia has been slapped with 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 CBI and the ED, but in neither cases, have the arguments on charges begun before the special courts trying the legislator. This inquiry was posed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who along with Justice SVN Bhatti, is currently hearing 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 last month, on July 14.Earlier this month, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu 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.Today, 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. He argued -"Excess profit margin was passed on to the retail price and ultimately borne by the consumer. The consumer ended up paying 338 crores in a span of ten months, and would have ended up paying 405 crores for the entire year for every year under this policy. The policy was designed in a manner which has caused losses for consumers corresponding to illegal dues paid to few private entities, which are also the bribe-givers...There are two kinds of proceeds of crime: first, bribe; and second, that excess profit of seven percent given to wholesalers."Further, the additional solicitor-general, inter alia, 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 inquired about the stage of the trial -"You can answer this tomorrow. The arguments on charge have not yet commenced. Why and when will they commence? You cannot keep someone behind ad infinitum because you're not clear on when you want to argue on charge. You answer this tomorrow, but after the chargesheet ...

Manish Sisodia's Bail Plea: ''You Can't Keep Someone Behind Bars Infinitely; When Will Charges Be Framed?' Supreme Court Asks ED, CBI

Awstika Das

Tags