New Delhi, The Enforcement Directorate on Monday opposed in the Supreme Court the bail plea of A leader Manish Sisodia, claiming it has documents to show his “neck-deep involvement” in the alleged Delhi excise policy “scam”.
Sisodia, a former deputy chief minister, has sought bail in the separate corruption and money laundering cases linked to the alleged scam contending that he has been in custody for 17 months and trial against him has not started yet.
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, who appeared for the ED, told a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan that it was not a “fabricated case” as there were a lot of evidence which indicated Sisodia’s direct involvement.
Highlighting the delay in the progress of these cases, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the Aam Aadmi Party leader, said there were a total of 493 witnesses and 69,000 pages of documents in the corruption and money maundering cases lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the ED, respectively.
“Why should I be in jail after 17 months is the larger liberty question,” Singhvi told the bench, adding, “What is the purpose of keeping me behind the bars?”
Countering his submissions, Raju said, “I have documents to show his neck-deep involvement in the matter. It is not as if he is an innocent person and picked up.”
He argued that there was no delay on the part of the probe agencies in the proceedings in these cases and those accused in the twin cases have taken five months for inspecting documents which were not relevant to the trial.
When Raju referred to the details of the excise policy, the bench asked,”Where do you draw the line between policy and criminality?”
Sisodia was arrested by the CBI on February 26, 2023 for his alleged role in the liquor policy case. The ED arrested him in the money laundering case stemming from the CBI FIR on March 9, 2023.
He resigned from the Delhi cabinet on February 28, 2023.
The CBI and the ED have lodged separate cases in the matter which pertains to alleged irregularities in the formulation and execution of the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy for 2021-22.
During the hearing on Monday, Singhvi, while referring to the apex court’s June 4 order, said it had disposed of Sisodia’s bail pleas with liberty to revive his prayer afresh after the ED and the CBI have filed their final prosecution complaint and charge sheet, respectively.
A prosecution complaint is the ED’s equivalent of a charge sheet.
Singhvi also referred to the October 30 last year verdict of the apex court which had denied bail to Sisodia in both the cases.
The senior counsel said, in its October last year verdict, the top court had noted the assurance given by the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial within the next six to eight months.
He said the apex court had then given liberty to Sisodia to move a fresh bail application in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial got protracted and proceeded at a snail’s pace in the next three months.
However, Raju said Sisodia’s petition for revival of bail pleas was “not maintainable” and he has to approach the trial court for relief.
He said the October last year verdict had noted that “if any application for bail is filed in the above circumstances, the same would be considered by the trial court on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail application, including the present judgment”.
“We will consider the preliminary objection,” the bench observed.
Raju argued that in this case, ₹100 crore was demanded as bribe to be used for the Goa assembly elections, out of which the agency has been able to trace ₹45 crore.
“It is not a fabricated case. There is a lot of evidence,” he said, adding, “All the evidence is there which pinpoints his direct involvement”.
The law officer, who also appeared for the CBI, said the A came to power on anti-corruption plank, and if its high-ranking member is involved in corruption which runs into hundreds of crore of rupees, an example has to be set.
Singhvi argued that the probe agency has alleged that Sisodia was delaying the proceedings before the trial court but the fact was that several documents seized during the investigation were not provided to the A leader along with the charge sheets or prosecution complaints.
“ED has grossly concealed documents which it acquired during the investigation…,” he alleged, adding, “Already 17 months have passed. Delay is writ large. Delay was your lordships’ concern in the October order, delay was also your lordships’ concern in the June order.”
The arguments remained inconclusive and would continue next week.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
