New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday did not give any relief to Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who challenged his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Delhi liquor policy case.
The top court asked him to move the Delhi High Court, instead.
Sisodia — through his counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi — told the court that the “triple test” which absolutely necessitated an arrest did not apply to him. These were whether he had skipped summons, was a flight risk or presented criminal interference. “None of these arise,” he told the bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud.
He also told the court that he holds 18 portfolios — including finance — in the current government and that no money was recovered from him.
The bench comprising Justices Chandrachud and P.S. Narasimha told him: “You are challenging an FIR, challenging remand, seeking bail, all under Article 32. You have remedies before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.”
The CBI arrested Sisodia on Sunday evening — after nine hours of interrogation – for the alleged financial irregularities in the now-scrapped liquor policy of 2021-22.
After his arrest Sunday, Sisodia appealed for bail in a Delhi court the next day, while the CBI sought a further five-day remand for more questioning.
The Rouse Avenue court on Monday granted the CBI’s request and remanded Sisodia to custody till 4 March. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader then moved the Supreme Court Tuesday morning, challenging his arrest.
The probe agency asked for the extra five days because it felt the AAP leader was not cooperating, sources said.
On Monday, Manish Sisodia’s counsel opposed the CBI’s demand for custody, saying there was no evidence against the AAP politician. Advocate Dayan Krishnan said the Delhi deputy chief minister had always cooperated with the probe agency.
Sisodia was summoned thrice and he appeared twice, Krishnan said. He added on behalf of Sisodia: “The CBI has alleged that he was concealing true facts of the case… Their case is that I did not confess. That’s their case. They expect me to answer the way they want.”
Krishnan further told the Rouse Avenue Court: “If someone is not willing to say something, that can’t be grounds for arrest.”
To the CBI’s contention that Sisodia was not cooperating, the leader countered in court: “As far as cooperation goes, I appeared when I was summoned. Searches were conducted… Where is the case that I didn’t cooperate? Just because I didn’t answer the way they wanted?”
There have been widespread protests by party workers in Delhi and in other states after Sisodia’s arrest, with Opposition leaders united in their condemnation of the move.
Sisodia, who was accused No. 1 in the first information report (FIR) registered by the CBI, was not among the seven against whom the probe agency filed the first charge sheet in November last year.
Also read: Who’s Gautam Malhotra, Punjab liquor baron held by ED in Delhi excise policy money laundering case