Read Time: 11 minutes
Yesterday, a submission was made on behalf of Sisodia against a projection being made that only he was responsible for the policy. "The previous LG approved the policy..he gave two major recommendations..they were approved..and complete policy was uploaded.." court was told
Supreme Court has clarified its stance on the question posed by it to the Enforcement Directorate yesterday, asking it as to why the Aam Aadmi Party, was not made an accused in the liquor policy scam, when it could be a beneficiary under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
This issue was raised today before the bench hearing Manish Sisodia's bail application by Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, who submitted that a controversy had erupted about AAP being made an accused now in the Delhi Liquor Policy scam.
"After your lordships indicated, the top newspapers are headlining that AAP is going to be made an accused...", he said.
"We just posed a question after you showed us a chart yesterday on the list of accused persons..", responded Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
"I was asked by the media today morning, I said we will not spare anybody who is guilty...and not accused somebody wrongly, just that..", Additional Solicitor General SV Raju added.
Once senior counsel Singhvi was done with his submissions, the bench also comprising Justice SVN Bhatti took the opportunity of clarifying its statement and said,
"Before ASG Raju begins, we would like to clarify that our question was not made with an intention to implicate anybody. Second, under PMLA, our query was that if you are not going after beneficiary A, then can you go after B and C etc..".
Yesterday, Singhvi had told the Supreme Court that ED had to show by way of evidence the involvement of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy scam.
Singhvi made this statement while submitting that there was no money trail found against Sisodia.
"No money trail leads to me..they are still trailing 100 crores..but still no bail..the star witness even does not say that he received any kickbacks.. this Dinesh Arora said he did not even meet the accused..all other accused, except one Aman Bhalla have been granted bail in the CBI case or have not been arrested only..this is extreme..", court was told.
Court was further told that since Sisodia was a high value target, he was still in jail.
Supreme Court had in July had agreed to hear Sisodia's bail application after senior counsel Singhvi had mentioned the same before a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha. Singhvi had underlined the urgency for hearing Sisodia saying his wife was unwell and had to be hospitalised again.
Sisodia approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi High Court's July 3rd order whereby a single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma had 'denied' bail to him.
Justice Sharma, while denying bail to Sisodia, had said, "The allegations are that deliberate loopholes were made to facilitate illegal and criminal activity. It is also pertinent to mention that investigations have revealed that 65% stakes were given to 'South Group' in Indo Spirits to make it a mechanism of continuous generation and channelization of proceeds of crime".
High Court had also noted that the ED has alleged that emails were planted by Manish Sisodia to show that there was public support to the recommendation of the group of meetings (GoM). It also noted that there was Sisodia's role in the conspiracy to allow illegal benefits in lieu of kickbacks of Rs. 100 crore.
"In view of the high political power held by the accused (Manish Sisodia) and his position in the party (Aam Aadmi Party) in power in Delhi, the possibility of influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out. The twin conditions in the PMLA are in addition to the triple test. This court is of the considered view that petitioner has not only been able to pass the twin conditions provided u/S. 45 of PMLA, but has also not crossed the triple test. I consider in the view of discussion made herein above that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The petition is accordingly dismissed", the court ordered.
On June 2, the single-judge bench had 'reserved order' in Sisodia's bail plea in PMLA case.
Notably, Sisodia has been denied bail by the High Court in the CBI case also. While denying bail to him in the CBI case, the court had observed, "The allegations are very serious...the gravity and allegations do not entitle the accused to be admitted to bail". Court had taken cognizance of the fact that since the party of the applicant was in power and the primary witnesses involved were public servants, there was a potential case of influencing the witnesses thereby hampering the due process of law.
Earlier, on February 28, a CJI DY Chandrachud-led bench of the Supreme Court dismissed former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia's plea challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in an alleged case of corruption relating to liquor excise policy. The bench also comprising Justice PS Narasimha had held that "other efficacious remedies were available" to Sisodia.
It is CBI's case that there were alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy for the year 2021-22. On February 26, the CBI commenced a second round of questioning after Sisodia was earlier questioned on October 17 last year. Chargesheet in the matter was filed on November 25, 2022.
Case Title: Manish Sisodia vs. Enforcement Directorate
Please Login or Register
