Manish Sisodia Bail: Delhi HC Reserves Verdict, ED Says AAP Will Be Made An Accused In Liquor Policy Case

Delhi High Court while reserving verdict in Manish Sisodia's bail petition questioned how the trial court judge came to conclusion that Sisodia is deliberately causing delay in trial.

ED told Delhi HC that AAP is going to be made a co-accused in the next chargesheet

Source : PTI

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved verdict in former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia's bail petition in the ED and CBI cases in the alleged Delhi Liquor Policy scam. The court today concluded hearing submissions made by Sisodia's lawyers and counsels appearing for ED and CBI. ED and CBI argued on merits of the case while the Manish Sisodia's counsel restricted his arguments to delay in trial and Supreme Court's observation in October 2023 order rejecting bail to Manish Sisodia. 

While seeking bail for him, Sisodia's counsel submitted that the ED and the CBI are still arresting people in the money laundering and corruption case and there is no question of early conclusion of the trial as the trial has not even started.

It may be recalled that the Supreme Court while rejecting Sisodia’s bail in October 2023 had said that he can move a fresh bail application before the trial court if the trial is protracted and proceeds at a “snail’s pace” in the next three months. 

ED however contended that the Supreme Court judgement says that delay in trial is just one factor to be considered while granting bail and the court can hear the case on merits.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of Delhi High Court said that ED and Manish Sisodia's counsel are reading the SC verdict in way that benefits them. She said, "You are reading it from the left while they are reading from the right." 

ED Says AAP Will Be Made An Accused In Delhi Liquor Policy Case

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Tuesday told the Delhi High Court that it will make the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) an accused in the money laundering case in the alleged Delhi Liquor policy scam. The ED's counsel made this submissions while while opposing the bail petition of former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in the money laundering case.

"AAP is going to be made a co-accused in the next prosecution complaint (chargesheet) to be filed in the case." ED's counsel said.

Delhi HC Questions Trial Court Judges Order Saying Sisodia Caused Dealy

Earlier in the day, Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appearing for Sisodia questioned the observations made by the trial court that Manish Sisodia along with other accused in the Delhi Liquor Policy case made concerted efforts to delay the trial. Notably, the high court also asked how the trial court made such observations and how the applications moved by Sisodia could cause delay in trial. 

Replying to the high court, counsel for ED said that they have no control over how a judge frames their judgement and the high court may consider sending the verdict back for correcting if it deems fit. However, the ED maintained that Sisodia and other co-accused were causing delay in the case.

Sisodia's counsel told the court that the trial court order states that a total of 38 applications were moved by the accused arrested in connection to Delhi Liquor Policy case to delay the case. Out of these 38, Manish Sisodia only filed 13 applications which included application to meet his ailing wife and clearing of check and a bank account, which were approved by the court itself.

"How can the court hold applications approved by it against me?" Krishnan asked on behalf of Sisodia. He further said that if these were frivolous applications then they should not have been allowed in the first place.

Last week, a special bench of Justice Kaveri Baweja of trial court rejected Sisodia bail pleas and observed, "...it is thus apparent that the Applicant 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 argument of the Applicant that he has not contributed to delay in proceedings or that the case has been proceeding at a “snail's pace”, therefore, cannot be accepted. The steady progression of the case, despite the apparent attempts to slow down its  progress, cannot, by any standards, be equated with 'snail's pace'."