Delhi court castigates Manish Sisodia for ‘delaying’ excise trial

Special judge Kaveri Baweja remarked that the former Delhi deputy CM has been filing frequent applications in an apparent attempt to stall legal proceedings.

A Delhi court, while denying bail to senior Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia in cases pertaining to alleged irregularities in the Delhi excise policy 2021-22, admonished the former deputy chief minister for his alleged involvement in causing delays by moving “frivolous” applications.

Senior Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia, who was the former deputy chief minister of Delhi, was arrested on February 26, 2023. (PTI)

Special judge Kaveri Baweja remarked that Sisodia, along with other accused, has been filing frequent applications in an apparent attempt to stall legal proceedings.

“It is apparent that the applicant (Sisodia) individually, and along with different accused have been filing one or the other application/making oral submissions frequently, some of them frivolous, that too on a piecemeal basis, apparently as a concerted effort for accomplishing the shared purpose of causing delay in the matter,” the judge said in the order on Tuesday, which was made available on Wednesday.

The Delhi government’s 2021-22 excise policy aimed to revitalise the city’s flagging liquor business, but was scrapped after lieutenant governor VK Saxena recommended a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged irregularities in the regime.

CBI arrested Sisodia on February 26, 2023, stating that it had recovered several incriminating evidences in the case, and to conduct a fair investigation, his custody was required. The AAP leader was later sent to Tihar Jail by Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court, from where he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) — which is carrying out a separate probe into the policy in connection with alleged money laundering — on March 9, 2023.

Sisodia moved his bail application in January — his second bail plea — claiming he had been detained for over 11 months without implication in the alleged offences of corruption and money laundering. He also highlighted the delay in the trial’s commencement, despite assurances from ED that it would conclude within 6-8 months.

The court, while reviewing previous hearings, noted instances where Sisodia and his co-accused had submitted redundant applications, despite the investigating officer stating that the contents were already provided. Additionally, it pointed out that despite previous orders, further applications seeking similar relief were filed, indicating a concerted effort to delay proceedings.

Special judge Bajwa noted that despite an order issued on November 21, 2023, indicating that no court permission was needed to open a new bank account, accused Vijay Nair filed a similar application. The judge noted that since the court had already clarified this matter in response to an application by Sisodia, Nair’s application reinforced the prosecution’s claim of a deliberate effort by the accused to prolong the legal process.

Rejecting Sisodia’s argument that he had not contributed to the delay in proceedings or that the case was progressing slowly, the judge remarked that the consistent advancement of the case, despite attempts to impede it, did not warrant the label of a “snail’s pace”.

Further, the court turned down Sisodia’s plea for bail parity with accused Benoy Babu, who was granted bail after 13 months of incarceration. The judge emphasised that Sisodia’s situation could not be equated with Babu’s since Sisodia himself had been involved in the sluggish progress of the case.

The court also refused to grant Sisodia bail on grounds of his wife’s ill-health, stating that there was no medical emergency presented in the application, and that Sisodia has a son to take care of his wife.

This is the second time that the court has denied bail to Sisodia — the court had rejected a previous bail plea in January.

Senior advocate Mohit Mathur, appearing for Sisodia, had earlier argued that both CBI and ED submitted that they have completed their probe against his client. He added that since the AAP leader’s arrest, there has been no significant progress in the trial, and he cannot be incarcerated indefinitely.

Opposing the bail, CBI averred that Sisodia does not satisfy the triple test for granting bail. It was highlighted that Sisodia is an influential person and had held post in the Delhi government. It was also stated that there have been instances where he destroyed mobile phones and a file containing crucial evidence was found to be missing, which has still not been recovered.

CBI also averred that Sisodia was the “kingpin” of the alleged scam, and the person on whose directions the alleged officials acted while formulating and implementing the policy.

Meanwhile, ED argued that the excise policy was an “evergreen vehicle” for illegal gains and was meant for recoupment of gains for future generations also. It was also submitted that there was no calculation done, while the policy was being formulated, to justify the increase in the wholesaler’s profit margins.

Arguing on the aspect of delay, ED submitted that the delay in the case’s trial has not been caused by the prosecution but by the accused.