In a major jolt to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), a Delhi Court while rejecting bail to Manish Sisodia, said that there is a concerted effort by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and other co-accused to delay the trial in the Delhi Liquor Policy case. The court in a detailed order uploaded on Wednesday said that 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.”
The court in its order observed, "In the light of the above observations based on record of the case, 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”. "
A special bench of Justice Kaveri Baweja on Tuesday dismissed Sisodi'a both interim and regular bail petition. "In the backdrop of the above discussion and the factual position which emerges from the court record, the plea of the Applicant that the proceedings have been delayed or protracted or that the case is proceedings at a snail’s pace are rejected. The so called delay caused in progression of the case is also clearly on account of reasons attributable to the applicant. "
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.
The court in its order also rejected the prayer for bail by Sisodia on the grounds that his wife is suffering with Multiple Sclerosis and a severe renal and gastro disease which is a neurodegenerative disorder that affects the central nervous system and leads to severe disability to see clearly, write, speak or walk.
Sisodia sought interim bail to take care of his ailing wife as he is the sole caretaker for her. The court rejected this arguement and said Sisodia had a son who could take care of the wife. It was submitted that her disease has been continuing since the past 23 years and due to the said disease, she has been under continuous medical treatment and care since then and that Sisodia is the only attendant for his wife who must remain present to take care of her.
"It is noted that this contention that the Applicant has a son who can take care of his wife has not been disputed by the Applicant in his rejoinder/written submissions filed to the reply/arguments of the DoE. Even otherwise, from the medical record of the wife of the Applicant as annexed with the application under consideration, it appears that she has been suffering from the said ailment since a long time and has also been receiving requisite medical treatment and care for the same. The application discloses no imminent or urgent need or any medical emergency warranting release of the Accused/Applicant on bail for this reason." the order noted while rejecting Manish Sisodia's bail plea.