SC seeks response from CBI, ED on Sisodia’s bail pleas; next hearing on July 28

Seeking bail in the ED case, Sisodia stated that the probe conducted so far has not linked him to any proceeds of crime and thus, he deserves to be granted bail

The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on a bail plea moved by Delhi’s former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in connection with separate cases against him over alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy.

The CBI had arrested ManishSisodia on February 26 (Twitter Photo)

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan set down the bail plea for interim orders on July 28 after Sisodia pointed out that the health condition of his wife has been deteriorating with each passing day and that he needs to be by her side urgently.

“The facts are shocking. There are genuine concerns of his wife...There is a 50% disability. MRIs show white plaque,” submitted senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader.

To this, the bench said that the petitioner can file an application for interim bail. “Is she in the hospital? It is a progressive disease...We are aware of it (disease). It starts from the legs and then goes up,” remarked justice Khanna.

When Singhvi said that the disease is like a mild paralysis, the bench retorted: “It is not mild...we know about it.”

The top court then issued notice on Sisodia’s petitions. At first, the bench assigned the next date of hearing in the third week of August but following a request by Singhvi, it fixed July 28 to consider interim orders on Sisodia’s bail.

Additional solicitor general SV Raju, representing the CBI and the ED, was present during the hearing.

Sisodia was arrested by the CBI on February 26 pursuant to a first information report registered in August 2022 under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 477A (falsification of accounts) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (illegal gratification) in connection with irregularities in framing and implementation of the excise policy of Delhi for the year 2021-22.

Of these offences, Section 477A IPC carries the maximum sentence of seven years. In the charge sheet, other sections under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, were added.

The CBI probe into the excise policy case was ordered on a complaint by Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena in July last year, where he sought a detailed investigation into rules being tweaked to benefit certain individuals and liquor barons. There were also suggestions of kickbacks paid to those in power reaching up to Sisodia, who held the Excise portfolio.

It was under Sisodia, during his tenure as the deputy chief minister of Delhi, the 2021-22 excise policy was introduced in November 2021. The policy earned Delhi government Rs.8,919.59 crore, estimated to be 27% higher than the base price bids at which the licenses were awarded.

Sisodia approached the Supreme Court on July 6 against the two orders passed by the Delhi high court rejecting two of his bails on July 3 in the ED case, and another on May 30 in the CBI case.

Sisodia told the top court that the charge sheet has already been filed by the CBI where the charges against him are punishable with less than seven years’ imprisonment. Seeking bail in the ED case, Sisodia stated that the probe conducted so far has not linked him to any proceeds of crime and thus, he deserves to be granted bail.

The petitions filed through advocate Vivek Jain also rely on the fact that other co-accused in the case have been granted bail.

In the recent order of the Delhi high court denying bail to the former Delhi deputy CM, a single judge bench said that the case against Sisodia does not fulfil the triple test for the grant of bail as also the twin bail conditions laid under Section 45 of the prevention of money laundering act (PMLA).

The triple test referred to by the high court allows an accused to be released on bail if he fulfils three parameters – the accused is not a flight risk, does not influence witnesses and will not tamper with the evidence.

In addition, for offences under PMLA, bail under Section 45 can be granted if the Supreme Court forms a prima facie view that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Prior to the high court order, even the trial judge had refused him bail on April 28 by a detailed order.

On May 30, when bail was declined to Sisodia in the CBI case, the high court was of the view that due to the high political positions held by the accused and his position in the party in power in Delhi, the possibility of influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out.