Excise Policy: Delhi High Court Reserves Order On Manish Sisodia’s Interim Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case

In a special Saturday hearing, the Delhi High Court reserved its judgment on the interim bail plea moved by Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Delhi Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the money laundering case concerning the implementation of previous liquor policy in national capital.

Sisodia has sought interim bail for a period of six weeks in view of the poor health condition of his wife. 

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma called for a medical report of Sisodia’s wife from LNJP hospital, where she is presently admitted, by today evening.

Yesterday, Sisodia was permitted to meet his wife today between 10 AM and 5 PM but was directed not to interact with media or use his mobile phone. 

Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur representing Sisodia today submitted that although Sisodia was permitted to go to his house today to meet his wife, he could not meet her as she was taken to LNJP hospital in the morning as her condition worsened.

On the other hand, Advocate Zoheb Hossain appearing for ED vehemently opposed the interim bail plea on the ground that Sisodia’s wife has been suffering from the ailment for last 20 years and that similar application moved by him on identical ground was withdrawn earlier.

Hossain said that except for one paragraph, the entire application for interim bail is similar to the one which was filed earlier and said that there is no change in circumstances.

Furthermore, he also said that the day the judgment in service case was delivered by the Supreme Court, there was “unauthorized removal” of some files from the office of Special Secretary of Vigilance, including some documents pertaining to the excise policy.

As Hossain submitted that the documents were being tampered with, Mathur opposed the submission and said: “Are they still investigating?… This is an argument of prejudice.”

Hossain further said that Sisodia held multiple portfolios including some “heavy ministries” in the Delhi cabinet and thus, he could not have been the sole caretaker of his wife and that there were other people taking care of her.

“Six weeks (as sought by Sisodia) makes no realistic difference except for him. The difference is for him only,” Hossain said.

He also submitted that the mandatory twin conditions under PMLA must be kept in while even when the court is considering relief on humanitarian grounds. He said that there are allegations of influencing witnesses against Sisodia and referred to statements of two witnesses.

Opposing the submissions, Mathur said: “Are we trying to say that a person’s life is so worthless that the husband, even when suffering imprisonment, shall not be entitled to have him to take care of her? Where are we heading with this? The jurisdiction is totally different. Your lordships had granted liberty to him considering the ailment that let him see her.”

Sisodia had previously also filed interim bail applications in both the cases but withdrew them later in view of the fact that the condition of his wife was stable. 

Justice Sharma recently denied Sisodia bail in the CBI case.

The AAP leader was arrested by the CBI on February 26. It is the case of the probe agency that there were irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy for the year 2021-22.

The CBI alleged that Sisodia was arrested as he gave evasive replies and did not cooperate with the investigation despite being confronted with evidence.

The CBI FIR states that Sisodia and others were instrumental in “recommending and taking decisions” regarding the excise policy 2021-22 “without approval of competent authority with an intention to extend undue favours to the licensee post tender.”

On the other hand, ED has alleged that the excise policy was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12% to certain private companies. It has said that such a stipulation was not mentioned in the minutes of meetings of Group of Ministers (GoM).

The agency has also claimed that there was a conspiracy which was coordinated by Vijay Nair and other individuals along with South Group to give extraordinary profit margin to wholesalers. Nair was acting on behalf of the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, according to the agency.

Title: Manish Sisodia v. ED