In a Significant Judgement the Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail petitions filed by
Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia, in liquor policy cases.
Arvind had sought bail in cases being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Sisodia has been in custody since February 26, 2023, after arrest by the CBI. Thereafter, he was arrested by the ED.
The bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma pronounced the order and said the case at hand is of grave misuse of power and aim was to create policy that is beneficial to some and kickbacks could come in. The had allowed to continue to meet Manish Sisodia to meet his ailing wife under custody once in a week. Corruption in this case originated with Applicant’s desire to design a policy that is beneficial to some individuals.
Court also observed that Applicant Manish Sisodia had invovled himself in the destruction of evidence and hence the possibility of tampering of evidence cannot be ruled out. He held 18 portfolios and was also a senior leader of AAP and Deputy CM, hence, he is very powerful.
Prosecution has made out a prima facie case of money laundering.case involves great misuse of power by the applicant Manish Sisodia. This deceptive Act was a calculative move by him. Tempering can’t be ruled out if Manish Sisodia is out on bail. Many crucial witnesses in the case are public servants and possibility of influencing can’t be ruled out, said the court.
On April 30, the Rouse Avenue Court had dismissed the bail petitions of Sisodia for the second time in the case and said, “This court is not inclined to admit the Applicant to Bail, either regular or interim, at this stage. The application under consideration is accordingly dismissed,”
Sisodia has been in custody since February 26, 2023, after arrest by the CBI. Thereafter, he was arrested by the ED. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and BRS Leader K Kavitha were also arrested in the excise policy case.
The ED and the CBI had alleged that irregularities were committed while modifying the excise policy, undue favours were extended to licence holders, the licence fee was waived or reduced and the L-1 licence was extended without the competent authority’s approval.
