Supreme Court Denies Bail To Manish Sisodia In Delhi Liquor Policy Case, Directs To Expedite Trial

Manish Sisodia Bail Hearing: While denying any relief to former Delhi dy CM Manish Sisodia, the Supreme Court directed that the trial should be completed within 6 to 8 months.

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the bail pleas of former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia in connection with cases related to alleged irregularities in the now scrapped liquor policy case. The Supreme Court, however, directed that the trial should be completed within 6 to 8 months failing which Sisodia would be entitled to apply for bail again within three months.

Sisodia, who was first arrested in connection with the case in February, is facing two cases -- one by the CBI and the other by the ED, which is probing the money laundering angle. 

Pronouncing the order, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said, "In the analysis there are certain aspects which are doubtful..regarding transfer of Rs 338 crore transfer is established. We have rejected the bail."

"But we have made one pointed observation, which is that they have assured that the trial will be concluded within six to eight months. So within three months, if the trial proceeds sloppily or slowly, he will (Sisodia) be entitled to file an application for bail," Live Law quoted Justice Khanna as saying.

The CBI has alleged that the AAP-led Delhi government's 2021-22 excise policy to grant licences to liquor traders favoured certain dealers who had paid bribes for it. The accusation has been strongly refuted by the AAP and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The policy was later scrapped.

The Supreme Court had reserved its decision on the bail petitions filed by Sisodia on October 17.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sisodia, had said no money trail directly implicating Sisodia was established by the ED. Singhvi also argued that the new liquor policy was a collective institutional decision to crackdown on cartelisation among private liquor manufacturers. He also said the policy  led to increased revenues while keeping a check on unreasonable and exorbitant profits earned by wholesalers, Live Law reported.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court had asked the ED why AAP, without specifically naming the party, was not added as an accused despite claims that it was a "beneficiary" and received Rs 100 crore as kickbacks.

"A political party is said to be the beneficiary of this, but it is neither an accused nor impleaded in the case," Justice Sanjiv Khanna had asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who represented the ED.

Later, the Supreme Court clarified that its question to the ASG was "not to implicate any political party" but rather posed as a "legal question". 

Earlier this month, the ASG informed the top court that it was mulling making AAP an accused in the money laundering case and invoking Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to probe the aspect of "vicarious liability".