Monday, May 20, 2024

ED informs Delhi High Court about documents on excise policy removed from vigilance secretary’s office on the day of Supreme Court verdict on services

The Delhi High Court was informed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that there was unauthorised removal of documents related pertaining to the excise policy scam from the office of Special Secretary (Vigilance).

The Special Counsel of Enforcement Directorate Zoheb Hossain said that the documents were removed the day the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict on the control of services in Delhi.

The Special Counsel informed this while Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was hearing the arguments in the interim bail plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Delhi minister, Manish Sisodia.

The Special Counsel also said that a first information report (FIR) concerning the removal of documents has been filed and the incident is being probed.

The Counsel for Sisodia,Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur objected to the submissions and said that this was an argument of prejudice and chargesheet has already been filed in the matter.

The Court on June2v,the court had reserved its verdict on the interim bail plea as well as the regular bail plea in the money case registered by the ED, a special sitting was held on Saturday noon.

Justice Sharma who had earliervreserved the matters for order, after reading the interim bail application, agreed to hear it.

Sisodia has sought interim bail for six weeks on the grounds of the medical condition of his wife.

The judge was also told that following the earlier order of the High Court, Manish Sisodia was taken to his house to meet his wife. but by then,she had ready been already admitted into LNJP Hospital due to which Sisodia could not meet her.

Arguing against the grant of interim bail, Zoheb Hossain put forward the point about wife of Sisodia been suffering from the degenerative disease for over two decades and the six-week bail will make no difference to her but only to Sisodia.

Hossain brought forth the argument that Manish Sisodia had claimed being the sole caretaker [of his wife].but he had 18 portfolios including finance, education, labour, vigilance, PWD, health, power, home, irrigation and flood control which makes it nearly impossible for him to be the sole caretaker,”

He further submitted that Sisodia had filed another interim bail plea but it was withdrawn on May 24 and there are judgments which lay down that such withdrawal amounts to dismissal unless they are able to show that some dramatic change.

Mohit Mathur, countered by asking if things were so bad that a woman cannot meet her even when she is in such a condition.

He asked as to what kind of jurisprudence are we heading towards? He added that Manish Sisodia was the lone caretaker as their only son is studying abroad.

He further questioned if it would make a person less of a caretaker if he is holding 18 portfolios? We are busy and dealing with multiple cases throughout the day. But don’t we go back home at the end of the day, and are we not the caretakers of the family?”

He also informed the court that the earlier bail application was withdrawn because Sisodia’s wife’s condition had stabilised but her condition has worsened since then.

After hearing the arguments, the Court reserved its order. Justice Sharma further called for a report from LNJP Hospital by today evening.


News Update