A single-judge Bench of the Delhi High Court rejected the bail application of Manish Sisodia who is awaiting trial in a money laundering case in the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
—
THE Delhi High Court on Monday denied bail to Manish Sisodia, former deputy chief minister of the government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Sisodia is in judicial custody as an accused in the money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
The Order of rejecting the bail was pronounced by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma.
On April 28, a bail application in the ED case against Sisodia was rejected by special judge M.K. Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi. “[T]he prosecution has … been able to show a genuine and prima facie case for involvement of the applicant in commission of the alleged offence of money laundering,” the court averred.
“This court has also gone through the Order of the learned special judge dated April 28, 2023 and does not find infirmity or illegality in the said order,” the high court observed on Monday.
The high court further stated that the allegations against Sisodia are “very serious in nature” and in view of the peculiar facts of the case, the present matter should be looked at from the perspective of “a deep rooted conspiracy involving huge loss of public funds.”
On May 30, the Delhi High Court had rejected Sisodia’s bail in the CBI case. “The petitioner being an influential person … there is a possibility of witnesses being influenced,” Justice Sharma had stated.
The high court, in the present Order, concluded that Sisodia was neither able to satisfy the “triple test” of bail, which comprises considerations of an accused being a flight risk, influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence; nor was he able to satisfy the “twin test” as per Section 45 (offences to be cognisable and non-bailable) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The high court clarified that the “triple test” is meant to be applied together with the “twin test”.
Also read: CBI court remands Manish Sisodia for two more days; he may still celebrate Holi at home
As per the twin test, an accused can be released on bail if the following two conditions are satisfied: First, the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and second, where the public prosecutor has opposed the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that one is not guilty of such offence and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The case against Sisodia is based on alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the now-retracted 2021–22 Delhi excise policy.
It is claimed that the policy gave certain vendors applying for liquor licences improper financial favours, resulting in losses to the exchequer, and kickbacks were allegedly received in exchange for those favours.
The Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) of the ED was based on a previous case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in August 2022 under Section 7 (offence related to a public servant being bribed) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 477A (falsification of accounts) read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
Sisodia was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation on February 26 after an eight-hour long interrogation at the CBI headquarter in Delhi.
Judge Nagpal had rejected Sisodia’s bail plea in the CBI case on March 31 on the ground that releasing him at that stage could hamper the ongoing investigation, though he was not deemed a flight risk.
Taking the conclusions drawn in that decision as support for denying bail in the present case, judge Nagpal wrote that “this court was of the prima facie view that the possibility of destruction of or tampering with the evidence by him could not be ruled out.”
The possibility of evidence-tampering by Sisodia was rooted in the allegation levelled against him of not producing three of the four mobile phones he is alleged to have possessed “as the same were expected to contain some vital piece of evidence … regarding his involvement therein.”
Also read: Who controls Delhi’s civil servants? Supreme Court sets out to decide
Upon going through the material placed on record by the ED, the court said, “[I]t clearly emerges from the evidence placed before the court that the applicant herein was connected with the generation of proceeds of crime of around ₹100 crore in the form of advance kickbacks.”
According to the court, the said amount was used for extending undue pecuniary benefits to conspirators and members of the liquor cartel, which was permitted to be formed by manipulating provisions of the Delhi excise policy for the benefit of conspirators.
The court noted the agency’s claim that some evidence was found showing that a part of the kickback received was spent on the Aam Aadmi Party’s election campaign for the Goa assembly elections in 2022 and some fake invoices have been created as a cover up for the cash amounts transferred through hawala channels.
On April 25, the CBI named Sisodia as an accused for the first time in a supplementary chargesheet filed by it. Sisodia and three others have been charged under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 7 (offence relating to public servant being bribed), 7A (taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence), 8 (offence relating to bribing of a public servant) and 12 (punishment for abetment of offences) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Despite two parallel cases against Sisodia, the court held that it would not amount to a violation of the principle of double jeopardy encapsulated in Article 20(2) (Protection in respect of conviction for offences) of the Constitution of India and Section 26 (provision as to offences punishable under two or more enactments) of the General Clauses Act.
The court was in agreement with the ED’s submission that “an accused can be prosecuted on similar facts in two different cases and for two different offences if the ingredients of the offences of these two cases, as disclosed by the facts and circumstances alleged against him, are different.”
The trial against Sisodia is yet to commence. In total, Sisodia has been in custody for 127 days.
