- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Agrees To List Manish...
Supreme Court Agrees To List Manish Sisodia's Curative Petitions For Bail In Delhi Liquor Policy Case
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
5 Feb 2024 2:16 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 5) agreed to list the curative petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the Delhi liquor policy case.Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sisodia, mentioned the curative petition before the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud seeking urgent listing.CJI...
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 5) agreed to list the curative petitions filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the Delhi liquor policy case.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sisodia, mentioned the curative petition before the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud seeking urgent listing.
CJI DY Chandrachud agreed to list the matter.
On October 30 last year, a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti had dismissed Sisodia's petitions seeking bail in the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) over the Delhi liquor policy scam matter.
On December 13, the same bench dismissed the review petition as well.
Background
The origin of the controversy is the excise policy framed by the Government of the National Capital of Delhi to boost revenue and reform liquor trade in 2021, which was later withdrawn after allegations of irregularities in implementation were made and Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the policy. This policy – which sought to completely privatise liquor trade in the national capital – was used to grant undue advantage to private entities at the cost of the public exchequer and smacked of corruption, the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation have claimed. The investigations are currently underway and led to the arrest of, among others, Manish Sisodia – the former deputy chief minister of Delhi and a prominent leader of the Aam Aadmi Party.
Manish Sisodia was first arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in a case related to the excise policy on February 26 and later by the Enforcement Directorate on March 9. In the first information report (FIR) registered by the CBI, Sisodia and others have been accused of being instrumental in 'recommending' and 'taking decisions' regarding the 2021-22 excise policy, “without the approval of competent authority with an intention to extend undue favours to the licensee post tender”. The central agency has also claimed that the AAP leader was arrested because he gave evasive replies and refused to cooperate with the investigation, despite being confronted with evidence.
On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate has alleged that the excise policy was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12 percent to certain private companies, although 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 that was coordinated by Vijay Nair and other individuals along with South Group to give extraordinary profit margins to wholesalers. Nair was acting on behalf of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, according to the agency.
Sisodia's bail applications in both cases – investigated by the CBI and the ED respectively – were rejected by Special Judge MK Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Courts in Delhi on March 31 and April 28. On July 3, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Sisodia in the money laundering case related to the implementation of the previous liquor policy in the national capital. Earlier, on May 30, the high court rejected his bail plea in the corruption case registered by the CBI in relation to the liquor policy. The former litigator has approached the Supreme Court challenging both these verdicts.