Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia on Monday moved Supreme Court seeking bail in liquor policy cases. The top court will hear Sisodia’s plea on Tuesday. Manish 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.
Earlier on May 21, Delhi High Court had dismissed the bail petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader in liquor policy cases. The bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma had 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.
However, it had Sisodia to meet his ailing wife once in a week.
Corruption in this case originated with applicant’s desire to design a policy that is beneficial to some individuals.
Court had also observed that Sisodia had involved 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 involfing great misuse of power by the applicant Manish Sisodia. This deceptive Act was a calculative move by him, the court had earlier said, adding that 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, it said.
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.
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.
