The bail petition of Delhi’s former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia will be taken up on Friday by Supreme Court after the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader claimed that his wife’s health condition is precarious.

The former Deputy CM Sisodia has been in jail in two separate probes being conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED in the alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.

A bench comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud along with Justice PS Narasimha have informed that Sisodia that his petition filed last week had already been listed by the Registry for July 17.

The former Delhi deputy CM’s case was represented by Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi who appeared for requested to advance the hearing to Friday citing his wife’s ill-health.

The High Court of Delhi on Monday refused to grant bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia and three others for their alleged involvement in the implementation of now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma further denied bail to AAP Communications In-charge Vijay Nair, Hyderabad-based businessman Abhishek Boinpally and General Manager of Pernod Ricard India Benoy Babu.

Noting that the order of the special judge denying bail to Sisodia was well-reasoned and passed on the basis of material on record, the Single-Judge bench observed that it did not find any infirmity or illegality with the special judge order.

The High Court further took note of the fact that Sisodia was denied bail last month in the CBI case also.

Nair has been alleged of receiving the alleged kickback amount of Rs 100 crore, which was transferred or delivered by the South liquor lobby.

The agencies alleged that Boinpally lobbied for certain liquor businessmen based in southern India. He was further accused of being part of a conspiracy in pursuance of which he transferred money through hawala channels to Nair.

Babu has been accused of indulging in conversion of bribe money into legitimate funds.

The court had last month also rejected Sisodia’s application seeking interim bail for six weeks in view of the poor health condition of his wife. Justice Sharma had observed that the allegations against Sisodia were extremely serious in nature and that it cannot forget the positions held by him.

Earlier on June 5, the same Bench had denied interim bail to Sisodia on the grounds of the highly-influential positions held by the AAP leader, apart from the fact that the allegations against him were of ‘serious’ nature.

However, Sisodia was permitted to meet his wife, Seema Sisodia, between 10 am and 5 pm.

The High Court directed the Delhi Police to take the AAP leader to either the residence or the hospital where Mrs Sisodia was currently staying between 10 am and 5 pm on a convenient day.

The Single-Judge Bench further directed Sisodia not to interact with anyone else except his family members during this period. He was further told not to speak to the media and asked not to use the mobile phone or internet.

The High Court further directed that Sisodia’s wife be granted the best possible medical treatment. It suggested that Seema Sisodia should be examined by a medical board constituted by the AIIMS.

Earlier on June 3, the High Court had reserved its order on the interim bail application of Sisodia.

Justice Sharma had refused to grant bail to Sisodia earlier on May 30 on the grounds that he was a powerful person and could influence witnesses if released on bail. The High Court further said that the allegations against the accused, who was a public servant, were very serious in nature.

The Single-Judge Bench, while noting that it has not examined the excise policy nor the power of the government, said that the applicant being a powerful person, there was a possibility of him influencing the witnesses.

A trial court in Delhi had earlier rejected Sisodia’s bail plea. Special CBI judge M.K. Nagpal had prima facie held that the former excise minister played the most important and vital role in the criminal conspiracy related to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy case.

The Central Bureau of Investigation had arrested the former Delhi Cabinet Minister on February 26 after an interrogation of more than eight hours. He was named as an accused in the FIR. Subsequently, he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 9 after questioning inside the Tihar jail. He has since remained behind the bars.

Both the CBI and the ED have filed cases against him under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), respectively.

CBI had opposed Sisodia’s bail on the grounds that it would scuttle the investigation and that there has been a ‘constant’ practice of destruction of evidence by him.

CBI alleged that Sisodia gave evasive replies during the probe and did not cooperate with the investigation, despite being confronted with evidence. The agency filed a charge sheet in the matter on November 25, 2022.

As per the FIR lodged by CBI, the former Delhi Cabinet Minister and others were instrumental in ‘recommending’ and ‘taking’ decisions regarding the Excise policy 2021-22 ‘without approval’ of the competent authority with an intention to ‘extend’ undue favours to the licensee post tender.

The court had earlier observed that Sisodia was instrumental at every stage in formulation and implementation of the Excise policy and that his arrest in the money laundering case was fully justified.

ED had alleged that the Excise Policy 2021-22 was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12 percent to certain private companies. It said that such a stipulation was not mentioned in the minutes of meetings of the Group of Ministers (GoM).

The national agency further submitted that the conspiracy was coordinated by businessman Vijay Nair and other individuals, in connivance with people from the Southern part of the country, to give extraordinary profit margin to wholesalers.

As per ED, Nair was acting on behalf of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Sisodia.

It also accused Sisodia of destroying the evidence, alleging that the AAP leader destroyed 14 phones out of which only two were recovered. It was also submitted that the former Delhi Minister used sim cards and phones, which were purchased in the name of other individuals.

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.

A local court in Delhi on Thursday directed the Delhi Police to produce former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia through video-conferencing, after the Aam Aadmi Party leader alleged that he was mishandled in the court premises.

Special CBI judge M.K. Nagpal at the Rouse Avenue Court further ordered the Delhi Police to preserve the CCTV footage after the Advocate representing Sisodia informed the court that during the last hearing, while the AAP leader was answering the media queries, police officials dragged him by his neck.

The Counsel said that no AAP worker was present on the spot, when the alleged mishandling with Sisodia took place. He sought directions from the court to get the CCTV footage of the incident.

On the other hand, the Delhi Police filed an application in the court seeking permission to produce Sisodia through video-conferencing only. 

The Counsel representing the Delhi Police said that producing the AAP leader physically in the court created ‘chaos’ as AAP supporters and mediapersons would gather in the corridors of the court. He further said that this could result in compromising the security of Sisodia.

Special Judge Nagpal asked Sisodia whether he wanted to attend the proceedings through VC or in person. The former Delhi Minister replied that he wished to attend the court hearings physically. He was today produced in the court through video-conferencing from the lock-up.

The Judge, taking in view the security aspect as mentioned in the plea by Delhi Police, directed that till the time a decision was not taken on the application, Sisodia would be produced in court only through video-conferencing.

The court fixed July 19 as the next date of hearing in the case. The Delhi Police was directed to place the CCTV footage before the court on the next date of hearing.

The Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) informed the court that a copy of the charge sheet has been given to each accused.

Sisodia was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for his alleged involvement in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise policy scam case on February 26. Subsequently, he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 9.

It has been alleged that Sisodia and other members of AAP had connived to grant liquor licences to certain traders in exchange for bribes.

The two national agencies had alleged that the Delhi Excise policy 2021-22 was tweaked and the profit margins were changed in a manner that benefited certain traders and kickbacks were received in exchange for the same.

Cases were registered in relation to the alleged scam after Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena recommended a CBI probe based on a report by the Delhi Chief Secretary.

The report claimed that Sisodia violated statutory provisions and notified a policy that had significant financial implications. AAP has denied the allegations and maintained that Sisodia is innocent.

As per the AAP leader, the policy and the changes made in it were approved by the LG and that CBI was now going after the policy decisions of an elected government. He further said that till now, neither the CBI nor the ED has been able to trace any kickbacks to him.

By Vikram Kilpady

The news cycle has been on hyper-drive over the Aam Aadmi Party leadership’s tryst with the new excise policy, which has seen former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia being jailed along with others for bureaucratic hanky panky. Given the intense media lens on Delhi’s now defunct excise policy, neighbouring Haryana’s new excise policy has been given a relative cold shoulder. The Manohar Lal Khattar government has brought in sweeping changes in its excise policy which will be effective from June 12, 2023, to June 11, 2024.

Apart from the hikes in prices of liquor brands, the Haryana excise policy allows corporate offices with a lakh square feet, some 5,000 employees and a 2,000 square feet canteen to set up “taverns” for their employees. A large number of multinationals, ranging from automobiles to consulting, have set up shop in Haryana, particularly in Gurugram, Faridabad, Sonipat and Panchkula districts. These taverns can serve ready-to-drink beverages, such as Bacardi Breezers or Jack Daniels Whisky and Cola, to name a few, beer and wine. The policy doesn’t stipulate how many units can be sold to a person within the office complex, leaving it to tavern minders and bouncers (we hope) to keep track.

Like in all things bureaucratic and Indian, the policy goes to great lengths in describing the conditions for setting up the tavern. Like how it should not be in a thoroughfare, like how people outside should not be able to see inside, like how it shall be enclosed, and what not. But it doesn’t cap how many bottles of, say Breezers or beers, can a man or a woman buy. Nor does the policy even mention what happens if an inebriated employee meets with an accident on the roads after losing control at the wheel. Who will indemnify the cattle owner, what about the other motorist who might sustain injuries, many resulting even in death, in such a crash? The notion of “drink responsibly” doesn’t cover the hangover like truths staring at the policy’s face. But given the tedium that offices usually descend into, a newspaper middle wondered if human resources departments should buy embittered employees a drink, and booze out attrition instead of happy birthday emails, a de rigueur HR tokenism in most offices.

Fast flowering urbanisation in Gurugram has forced the state to move liquor consumption out of rustic hole-in-the-wall shacks to air-conditioned shops in malls with displays that could rival TV showrooms. The taverns are nudging into extinction the ahatas, the tin-roofed, ramshackle brick structures squeezing up behind vends, where the harried, the rushed and the poor go to consume the liquor that gets them about the day or night. If you could drink at work, why stop at the liquor shops that now proliferate along the highways, unless it is for yet another one-for-the-road? 

Liquor consumption doesn’t affect everyone equally. Some drink heavy, they are true epicures, having arrived at the exact measure they require, and the hangover antidote to accompany it. Until recently, it was an accepted norm that two 45 ml drinks of hard liquor or less was a safe daily intake for men, and one 45 ml portion, or less, of hard liquor was a safe daily amount for women. So said the United States’ National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which also defines a standard drink as referring to 350 ml beer with 5% alcohol, or 150 ml table wine, or 45 ml spirits (rum, whisky, vodka, gin, etc).

In India, the maximum beer sales are in the strong category, which means approximately 8% alcohol. Besides, hard liquor doesn’t come in 45 ml bottles, the smallest being the 180 ml, which translates to four 45 ml drinks, well over the legal limit. Though miniatures of 60 ml are available, nobody lands in tipsy territory for downing just one. Imagine all these people behind the wheels of their respective cars, heading home or elsewhere with their heads liquor lightened and, hence, hard to keep. Most insurance companies deny claims if the insured driver has had some alcohol, until a victim sues them.

On alcohol consumption in India, a Deutsche Welle report in 2022 quoted a Lancet study which said the highest consumption of alcohol was among men in the 40-64 age group and in the 15-39 age group, the increase in both groups was under 6% over 30 years. Similarly, a National Family Health Survey showed alcohol consumption was higher in rural areas than in cities. The damage that alcohol addiction subjects people and their families to are painfully chronicled on Twitter by a hepatologist who styles himself TheLiverDoc and lists an array of families left devastated by the loss of a breadwinner or a child of elderly parents, etc. 

The spike in liquor consumption over 30 years, as found by The Lancet, coincides with liberalisation, but it should not be the sole factor to blame. The Indian State’s relationship with liquor has been moralistic right from 1947. Article 47 of the Constitution mandates health as a directive principle to the State, requiring it to promote health and endeavour to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs. Gujarat has been more or less dry for many decades now, at least on paper. Tales of cars stocked with the latest bootlegged alcohol tucked away in the glove compartment and under the seats, all for a meagre Rs 100 markup, has left bootlegging a viable economic activity in the state. On the other side of India, Bihar enforces its prohibition with gusto, leading to such a pile-up of prosecution that the courts have thrown up their hands. Bootleggers have a field day, police in the state have submitted in court that bandicoots drank up all liquor confiscated from smugglers, all with a straight face. 

Consider the other group of states that milk (no pun intended) the tippler’s addiction to its maximum. Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Kerala and Goa have been laughing their way to the bank as alcoholism exerts a python-like grip around citizens. Especially after the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax regime, state governments have been sore at being excluded from direct revenue in any field barring liquor and fuel. Since the Central GST remittances have been delayed several times over, the states push liquor as one way out to corner revenue which need not be shared. Therefore, arrive the reports of record-breaking sales of liquor in BEVCO in Kerala and TASMAC in Tamil Nadu after every festival or so. Christmas hic! Deepavali hic! Delhi was also in the throes of buy-one, get-one-free dipsomania until the excise policy was put on hold in another Delhi government versus centre control battle.  

Alcohol abuse and addiction are visible devils plaguing Indian men and women. The token slogan of “drink responsibly” is not enough to get alcohol companies off the hook. As with cigarettes, alcohol also needs aggressive countermeasures. Alcohol companies should visit companies and instead of giving free samples, get a few of their brand ambassadors to speak on the perils of overindulgence. It’s in their interest that people continue to enjoy their whisky and not end up in hospitals with severe, life-threatening ailments. 

For people unable to make sense of their alcohol intake, please listen to Episode 86 on the podcast Huberman Lab, which deals with what alcohol does to your body, brain and health. It’s an hour or so and is on Spotify. For those who want to kick the habit, the support system is available in the form of a range of de-addiction centres and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. The 12-step programme of AA derives its entire basis from Christian scripture. Unfortunately, Hindutva organisations have not come up with a de-addiction programme yet. Maybe, it is time they did because as more Indians age, the healthcare costs are going to only go up.  

At the outset, the new Haryana liquor policy looks modern and liberal, but what it hides is normalising alcohol in one’s life, since it legitimises companies letting their employees drink on office premises. Imagine the large number of people who will drink for the first time since all is a-ok. 

Haryana has other problems to address. It topped the country’s unemployment figures in December 2022 in a survey conducted by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy. The figure stood at 37.4%, nearly 4 out of 10 unemployed, followed by Rajasthan at 28 %. It has random murders of Muslims for alleged cow smuggling, homicides carried out by people turbo-charged on super-strong beer. Prohibition is not the answer, nor is abstinence. Individually, discipline is necessary, most when one lets their hair down. Maybe state governments should possibly jack up tax on liquor, instead of the very high levies on petrol, diesel, CNG, LPG etc. In consonance with the Union government, of course.

A local court in Delhi on Friday dismissed the bail petition of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia, who was arrested for his alleged involvement in a case related to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.

Special Judge M.K. Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Court denied bail to Sisodia, who is currently in judicial custody. 

Both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have filed cases against him under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), respectively.

Earlier on March 24, the court had reserved order in the bail petition of Sisodia.

Special Judge Nagpal had earlier heard arguments by Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur, who represented Sisodia and Special Public Prosecutor D.P. Singh, who appeared for CBI.

CBI had earlier opposed Sisodia’s bail on the grounds that it would scuttle the investigation and that there has been a ‘constant’ practice of destruction of evidence by him.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing Sisodia, submitted that he had complied with the requirements of Section 41A CrPC notice, adding that the requirements of custodial Interrogation no longer survived. 

Contending that nothing exceptional has been stated by CBI to warrant continued custody, Krishnan said nothing was on record to show that Sisodia could threaten the witnesses. 

On March 22, the same court had extended the judicial custody of the AAP leader till April 5. Sisodia was produced before Special Judge Nagpal on expiry of custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 

CBI had arrested the AAP leader on February 26 after an interrogation of more than eight hours. He was named as an accused in the FIR. 

CBI alleged that Sisodia gave evasive replies during the probe and did not cooperate with the investigation, despite being confronted with evidence. The agency filed a charge sheet in the matter on November 25, 2022.

As per the FIR lodged by CBI, the former Delhi Cabinet Minister and others were instrumental in ‘recommending’ and ‘taking’ decisions regarding the Excise policy 2021-22 ‘without approval’ of the competent authority with an intention to ‘extend’ undue favours to the licensee post tender.

On February 27, the trial court had remanded Sisodia to CBI custody for five days. His custody was later extended for two more days.

On March 6, he was sent to judicial custody in the CBI case. It was during this judicial custody that ED arrested him under PMLA. The Enforcement Directorate had arrested Sisodia after questioning him inside Tihar jail.

On March 10, the same court had remanded Sisodia to ED custody for his alleged involvement in irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The custody was later extended to March 22.

The court had earlier observed that Sisodia was instrumental at every stage in formulation and implementation of the Excise policy and that his arrest in the money laundering case was fully justified.

ED had alleged that the Excise Policy 2021-22 was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12 percent to certain private companies. It said that such a stipulation was not mentioned in the minutes of meetings of the Group of Ministers (GoM).

The national agency further submitted that the conspiracy was coordinated by businessman Vijay Nair and other individuals, in connivance with people from the Southern part of the country, to give extraordinary profit margin to wholesalers.

As per ED, Nair was acting on behalf of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Sisodia.

It also accused Sisodia of destroying the evidence, alleging that the AAP leader destroyed 14 phones out of which only two were recovered. It was also submitted that the former Delhi Minister used sim cards and phones, which were purchased in the name of other individuals.

A local court in Delhi on Saturday adjourned hearing to April 5 in the bail petition of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case related to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22

The court listed the matter for hearing at 02:00 pm on April 5 after it was apprised that ED was yet to file a reply to Sisodia’s bail petition.

Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the national agency, while Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan, Siddharth Aggarwal and Mohit Mathur represented Sisodia.

Earlier on Friday, Special Judge M.K. Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Courts had reserved order in bail petition of Sisodia. The court said it would pronounce the order on March 31 at 4 pm in a corruption case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).  

The AAP leader is currently in judicial custody. Both the CBI and ED have filed cases against him under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), respectively.

Special Judge Nagpal had earlier heard arguments by Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur, who represented Sisodia and Special Public Prosecutor D.P. Singh, who appeared for CBI.

Earlier this week, CBI had opposed Sisodia’s bail on the grounds that it would scuttle the investigation and that there has been a ‘constant’ practice of destruction of evidence by him.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing Sisodia, submitted that he had complied with the requirements of Section 41A CrPC notice, adding that the requirements of custodial Interrogation no longer survived. 

Contending that nothing exceptional has been stated by CBI to warrant continued custody, Krishnan said nothing is on record to show that Sisodia could threaten the witnesses. 

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had arrested the AAP leader on February 26 after an interrogation of more than eight hours. He was named as an accused in the FIR. 

CBI alleged that Sisodia gave evasive replies during the probe and did not cooperate with the investigation, despite being confronted with evidence. The agency filed a charge sheet in the matter on November 25, 2022.

As per the FIR lodged by CBI, the former Delhi Cabinet Minister and others were instrumental in ‘recommending’ and ‘taking’ decisions regarding the Excise policy 2021-22 ‘without approval’ of the competent authority with an intention to ‘extend’ undue favours to the licensee post tender.

On February 27, the trial court had remanded Sisodia to CBI custody for five days. His custody was later extended for two more days.

On March 6, he was sent to judicial custody in the CBI case. It was during this judicial custody that ED arrested him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Earlier on March 10, the same court had remanded Sisodia to ED custody for his alleged involvement in irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The custody was later extended to March 22. 

On March 22, the same court had extended the judicial custody of Sisodia till April 5. Sisodia was produced before Special Judge Nagpal on expiry of custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 

The Enforcement Directorate had arrested Sisodia under PMLA after questioning him inside Tihar jail.

The court had earlier observed that Sisodia was instrumental at every state in the formulation and implementation of excise policy and that his arrest in the money laundering case was fully justified.

ED had alleged that the Excise Policy 2021-22 was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12 percent to certain private companies. It said that such a stipulation was not mentioned in the minutes of meetings of the Group of Ministers (GoM).

The national agency further submitted that the conspiracy was coordinated by businessman Vijay Nair and other individuals, in connivance with people from the Southern part of the country, to give extraordinary profit margin to wholesalers.

As per ED, Nair was acting on behalf of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Sisodia.

It also accused Sisodia of destroying the evidence, alleging that the AAP leader destroyed 14 phones out of which only two were recovered. It was also submitted that the former Delhi cabinet Minister used sim cards and phones, which were purchased in the name of other individuals.

The former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia appeared before the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi for a hearing on his bail plea.

Sisodia told the court that fromthe initial stages, he has been cooperating with the CBI investigation into the excise scam case. He added that however no the search has revealed any incriminating material against him.

The counsel for Sisodia, while making submissions on the bail plea said that the custodial interrogation was no longer required and Sisodia was not a flight risk.

The Counsel for Sisodia, added that there’s no documentary evidence of receiving any kickbacks against the former deputy CM and the change in the excise policy is purely in the normal course.

The lawyer added that the matter of change in excise policy went to the Delhi LG and the finance secretary among others.

He added that all the offences alleged entail less than seven years of imprisonment in the case and any further incarceration is not justified.

The bail was opposed by CBI which contended that Sisodia had dealt with an ‘unprecedented’ 18 ministries and it may be true that he is not a flight risk but he is definitely a risk for evidence destruction.

The CBI counsel submitted that frequently changing phones by the former deputy chief minister cannot be counted as act of innocence but as deliberate attempt for the destruction of evidence in the case.

The CBI counsel explained reasonably that the probing agency has 60 days to file the chargesheet in the case and if Manish Sisodia comes out, investigation will be seriously compromised.

The reason for this is very obvious as Sisodia is definitely in a position to influence witnesses and destroy evidence in the case.

Sisodia’s lawyer however argued back stating that nothing on record can show that Sisodia will be threatening the witnesses,”

.On Monday, Sisodia’s judicial custody was extended till April 3 by the Delhi court in the excise policy case being probed by the CBI.He is at present in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody in a related case.The ED had arrested Sisodia on March 9 evening in the Tihar jail, where he was lodged in connection with the case being probed by the CBI pertaining to alleged corruption in the formulation and implementation of the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22.

A local court in Delhi on Friday extended till March 22, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody of senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who was arrested by ED for his alleged involvement in irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.

Special Judge M.K. Nagpal at the Rouse Avenue Court directed that Sisodia be produced in the court at 2 pm on March 22. Further, the court listed the bail petition of the Aam Aadmi Party leader for hearing on March 21.

Earlier on March 10, the court had remanded Sisodia in ED custody till March 17 for his alleged involvement in irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. 

Special Judge M.K. Nagpal at the Rouse Avenue Courts passed the verdict after hearing arguments from Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan, Mohit Mathur and Siddharth Aggarwal, who appeared for Sisodia. The ED was represented by Advocate Zoheb Hossain 

The court further listed the bail application of Sisodia in the CBI case for hearing at 2:00 pm on March 21.

The Enforcement Directorate had arrested Sisodia under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), after questioning him inside Tihar jail.

A local court in Delhi on Friday sent former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia in the custody of Enforcement Directorate till March 17 for his alleged involvement in irregularities in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. 

Special Judge M.K. Nagpal at the Rouse Avenue Courts passed the verdict after hearing arguments from Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan, Mohit Mathur and Siddharth Aggarwal, who appeared for Sisodia. The ED was represented by Advocate Zoheb Hossain 

The court further listed the bail application of Sisodia in the CBI case for hearing at 2:00 pm on March 21.

Yesterday, the Enforcement Directorate had arrested Sisodia under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), after questioning him inside Tihar jail.

On March 6, the Rouse Avenue Court had remanded Sisodia to judicial custody in the case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging corruption in implementation of the now-scrapped Excise Policy for the year 2021-22.

The order was passed after the CBI Counsel said they were not seeking extension of his custody at present but might seek his remand again in the next 15 days.

The trial court permitted Sisodia to have spectacles, Bhagwat Gita, a diary and a pen inside the jail premises. He further got permission to have his medicines as prescribed in the MLC conducted by CBI officials. 

Special Judge Nagpal had directed the Jail Superintendent to consider Sisodia’s request of keeping him in Vipaasana (meditation) cell.

On February 27, the trial court had remanded Sisodia to CBI’s custody for five days. He was again sent to CBI custody for two more days on Saturday last week.

Sisodia was arrested on February 26 after an interrogation of more than eight hours. He was named as an accused in the FIR related to alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the Excise Policy for the year 2021-22.

CBI claimed that it arrested Sisodia as he gave evasive replies and did not cooperate with the investigation despite being confronted with evidence. 

Sisodia was earlier questioned on October 17 last year. A charge sheet was filed in the matter on November 25, 2022.

The FIR by CBI alleged that Sisodia and others were instrumental in ‘recommending’ and taking decisions regarding the Excise policy 2021-22 ‘without’ approval of the competent authority, with an intention to ‘extend’ undue favours to the licensee post tender.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over his alleged involvement in irregularities related to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha told Sisodia that he had alternative remedies available before the High Court, which he should have pursued, instead of directly invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The CJI told Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Sisodia, that the petitioner was challenging an FIR, challenging remand and seeking bail, all under Article 32 of the Constitution. 

The CJI observed that if it decided to take up this petition, the Apex Court would be asked to interfere in every such case. He added that the top court of the country could not intervene in this.

Justice Narasimha said that the case should not come to the Supreme Court, just because the incident took place in Delhi.

The Senior Counsel, while referring to the cases of journalists Arnab Goswami and Vinod Dua, said that Article 32 could be invoked for bail in exceptional circumstances. 

The CJI replied that Goswami was a case, which came to the Supreme Court after the High Court, while Vinod Dua was a case relating to FIRs against a journalist for making critical reports.

Singhvi further placed reliance on the Jagisha Arora case verdict, wherein the Apex Court had allowed bail to journalist Prashant Kanojia in a writ petition filed against a remand order. 

He argued that in the present case, the remand was not at all warranted, since the offence attracted a maximum punishment of seven years, there was no flight risk in the case and also because the Delhi Cabinet Minister had complied with all the summons issued so far to him.

The Senior Counsel contended that the remand was sought on the ground that Sisodia was not cooperating. He asked whether cooperation meant that one should waive the right against self-incrimination.

When the CJI asked him why these arguments could not be raised before the Delhi High Court, Singhvi replied that the roster judge of the Delhi High Court was not holding sittings on most days as he was involved with the work as UAPA Tribunal in the PFI case.

Earlier on Monday, Special CBI Judge M.K. Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court had sent Sisodia to five days CBI remand in connection with his alleged involvement in the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy. 

Appearing for CBI, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Pankaj Gupta sought custody of Sisodia till March 4, arguing that investigation had revealed that Sisodia verbally directed the Secretary to put a new Cabinet note to bring about the change and variance in the policy. 

Gupta said the Deputy Chief Minister was heading the Group of Ministers constituted by the Cabinet for the Excise Policy. The profit margin was enhanced from five percent to 12 percent. Sisodia could not explain why the changes were made, he added.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had arrested Sisodia in connection with the liquor policy scam on Sunday, after questioning him for eight hours.

CBI said it had arrested Sisodia on the basis of some documents and digital evidence, along with destruction of evidence.