Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking bail over delay in the commencement of the trial in the Delhi Liquor Policy case.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Sisodia mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, pressing for an urgent hearing. The CJI said he’d look into the petition and assured Singhvi that the matter will be heard as soon as the defects are cured in the plea
The Delhi High Court on May 22 rejected the bail plea moved by Manish Sisodia in the ED and CBI cases in the alleged Delhi Liquor Policy scam. The high court while rejecting his bail plea observed that Sisodia fabricated and manufactured public opinion to suit his goal and subverted the process of making the excise policy by deviating from the expert committee report constituted by him. The court made scathing observations and said that Sisodia betrayed betrayed democratic principles by breaking public’s trust.
The court took a view that Sisodia breached the public’s trust and misused his powers as the Minister in the Delhi government in drafting of the now scrapped Delhi Excise policy.
A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of high court while pronouncing the verdict said that the high court can apply its own mind to decide the bail on merits in addition to the condition of “delay in trial” imposed by the Supreme Court’s order in October 2023.
While pronouncing the verdict the high court also took a prima facie view and said that Sisodia manufactured and fabricated feedback from the public to draft the now scrapped Delhi Excise Policy which was actually intended to benefit members of the south group. The bench also observed that he misused his powers as the Delhi Minister to manipulate the policy as he wished.
The high court termed Sisodia’s actions in framing Delhi Liquor Policy a great betrayal of democratic principles.
The court rejected the bail plea and said that the ED and CBI have made a prima facie case of money laundering against him.
Noting that Sisodia is a powerful figure and former deputy chief minister of Delhi, the court held that he is capable of tampering evidence and witnesses if given bail.
The court however allowed Sisodia to continue to meet his wife in accordance with an earlier court order. However, the court did not grant him interim bail on the grounds that he is the sole caretaker of his wife.
