Former Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia was denied bail by the Delhi High Court on Tuesday. The court’s decision comes in relation to the money laundering and corruption cases connected to the alleged liquor policy scam.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has denied Sisodia’s second bail requests in the cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Sisodia is currently in judicial custody for both cases.
The court stated that Sisodia failed to present a compelling argument for being granted bail. It further stated that Sisodia had gravely abused his position of authority and betrayed trust in this matter. It said that the evidence revealed that Sisodia used public input to influence excise policymaking.
Justice Sharma stated Sisodia’s intention to develop the liquor policy generated corruption since he tried to influence it and departed from his expert committee recommendations.
The court expressed concerns about the compromised integrity of the decision making process.
It was noted that Sisodia did not meet the requirements for bail in the CBI case. It was admitted that he failed to provide two phones that he had used, and he claimed that they were damaged. The court expressed concerns about the potential tampering of evidence by Sisodia.
The court also mentioned that Sisodia holds significant power, overseeing 18 ministries and being an influential figure.
The court noted that several witnesses, who are public servants, have provided statements against the applicant. Therefore, the court cannot dismiss the possibility of him attempting to influence them.
The court has stated that the prosecution has successfully established a case of money laundering against Sisodia in the PMLA case.
Nevertheless, the court has granted Sisodia the permission to meet his wife on a weekly basis, and the previous trial court order allowing him to do so will remain in effect.
According to Justice Sharma, the Supreme Court order made it clear that the trial court should not be influenced by the observations on the rejection of bail when hearing Sisodia’s fresh application.
The court stated that it has the authority to independently consider the facts of the case and make a decision on the application.
However, the judge disagreed with the trial court’s observation that the accused persons were intentionally trying to delay the trial.
The court noted the importance of recognizing the unique roles of each accused individual and the common occurrence of their legal strategies aligning and their counsels filing similar applications.
The court also emphasized that the filing of applications by multiple accused individuals does not necessarily indicate a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. It reiterated that each accused person has the right to a fair trial.
The court determined that there was no delay on the part of the prosecution, both ED and CBI, or the trial court.
Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur represented Sisodia in court. ED was represented by special counsel Zoheb Hossain. SPP Ripudaman Bharadwaj made an appearance on behalf of the CBI. Check out the arguments presented here.
Sisodia has taken his case to court after his second bail pleas were dismissed by the trial court in both the CBI and ED cases on April 30.
The trial court refused to grant bail to Sisodia in the money laundering case, dismissing his argument that the proceedings have been delayed or are moving very slowly. It was also noticed that the delay is clearly due to reasons related to the AAP leader.
Sisodia’s request for bail was rejected by the trial court, Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court in both the ED and CBI cases. Sisodia’s review petitions against the denial of bail were also dismissed by the Supreme Court. His attempts to seek a remedy have also been rejected.
Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed his bail plea and suggested that he could file a new one before the trial court if the trial continues to move slowly.
Manish Sisodia was initially arrested by the CBI and ED on February 26 and March 9 of the previous year, respectively.
According to the FIR filed by the CBI, Sisodia and others have been accused of playing a role in making recommendations and decisions about the 2021-22 excise policy without proper approval. The intention behind this was allegedly to give unfair advantages to the licensee after the tender process.
The central agency has also stated that the AAP leader was arrested due to his uncooperative behavior during the investigation, including giving evasive replies and refusing to cooperate, even when presented with evidence.
However, the Enforcement Directorate claims that the excise policy was put into place as part of a scheme to provide certain private companies with a 12 percent profit in wholesale business. Interestingly, this stipulation was not mentioned in the minutes of the Group of Ministers (GoM) meetings.
The agency has also alleged that there was a conspiracy orchestrated by Vijay Nair and other individuals, in collaboration with South Group, to provide wholesalers with unusually high profit margins. According to the agency, Nair was acting on behalf of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia.
Sisodia’s bail applications in both cases were denied by Special Judge MK Nagpal (now transferred) on March 31 and April 28 last year. After being denied bail by the Delhi High Court in both cases, Sisodia decided to challenge these verdicts by approaching the Supreme Court.
Last year on October 30, the Supreme Court denied bail to the former Delhi deputy chief minister.
Manish Sisodia’s legal battle against the ED and CBI
Case Title : Manish Sisodia v. ED, CBI