28 Oct 2023 12:16 PM GMT
The Supreme Court will pronounce judgment on the bail applications filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi liquor policy scam case on October 30.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti heard the bail applications filed by Sisodia in relation to the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and reserved judgment on October 17. While the Central Bureau of Investigation is handling the case under the PC Act, the Directorate of Enforcement(ED) is dealing with the PMLA case.
The hearing of the case witnessed certain dramatic moments with the bench asking the ED why the political party, which is alleged to be the beneficiary of the money laundering, was not arrayed as an accused. The ED later told the Supreme Court that it is contemplating making AAP an accused in the case.
The bench also quizzed the ED regarding the sustainability of money laundering case if there is no money trail found against Sisodia. The bench also asked the ED if the PMLA case can include bribery allegations which are not found in the predicate offence (the CBI case).
The bench also commented during the hearing that a person can't be kept behind the bars indefinitely and asked the agencies when the charges will be framed.
Sisodia was arrested on February 26 this year by the CBI and later, the ED also arrested him.
The agencies have 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.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the embattled legislator, argued that no money trail directly implicating Sisodia. No evidence, he further argued, linked Sisodia with the independent offence of money laundering in Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Regarding the controversy surrounding the liquor policy, Singhvi argued that the new policy, which was a collective institutional decision aimed at breaking the cartelisation prevalent among private manufacturers - had increased revenues and limited the unreasonable and exorbitant profits earned by wholesalers. The senior counsel also stressed Sisodia's minimal flight risk and his incapacity to influence witnesses, in support of the contention that the criteria for granting bail had been met.