New Delhi: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has blamed former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia for delaying trial in the excise policy case, while asserting that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader does not deserve bail owing to this conduct.
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the central probe agency, which is examining the corruption aspect of the case, said filing of multiple applications by Sisodia has caused the delay in trial proceedings, for which the CBI cannot be blamed.
Pointing to the October 2023 order of the top court, which gave liberty to the AAP leader to apply for bail, in case there is a change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at snail’s pace, the CBI said the condition is not applicable if the delay is on account of Sisodia.
The agency also said that though Sisodia is actually to be blamed for the delay, he has “cleverly” attributed the same to the CBI and the trial court by raising the argument that the agency has filed a chargesheet running into 30,000 pages with 294 persons cited as witnesses. CBI has justified filing of the bulky chargesheet on the ground that the case against Sisodia is an economic offence wherein the factual case becomes clearer only while the investigation is in progress.
The CBI assured the top court that “its investigation in the case is at the last stage and is likely to be concluded within a short period of time”.
Sisodia has moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s 21 May order declining his bail in the liquor policy scam case in both the CBI and ED cases. The HC had denied him bail after holding that the SC order cannot be interpreted to suggest that the top court had in its October 2023 order confined the trial court or the HC to solely examine the delay in trial in case Sisodia moves for bail. SC had in its October 2023 order rejected Sisodia’s bail plea.
The Delhi HC had concluded that the SC order did not preclude it or the trial court from examining the bail request on merits. It had upheld the trial court order declining Sisodia any relief.
Sisodia’s 13 applications and CBI’s response
On Monday a Supreme Court bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai heard the matter. However, it was adjourned after ED’s counsel, additional solicitor general S.V. Raju, sought time to file the agency’s response to the bail plea. Raju apprised the court about CBI’s affidavit though.
The CBI document provided a list of 13 applications the AAP leader has filed in the trial court, raising various demands. It maintained these applications, filed after SC’s October 2023 order, impacted the trial of the case.
As per the list, Sisodia twice moved the trial court to permit him to see his ailing wife while on parole and once to seek a clarification that the travel expenses incurred during his trips should be borne by the state. Three applications were filed on his behalf to either sign a vakalatnama, a cheque or some documents.
Another application filed by him pertained to his request for supply of documents or articles that were seized by CBI during the course of searches. One application related to his plea for interim bail to attend his niece’s wedding, while another was to discharge the two sureties that were furnished when he got the interim bail.
Two applications on his behalf were filed seeking preponement of his regular bail application and one was on his request to produce him to attend the hearing on his bail plea. The thirteenth application was to get interim bail for election campaigning during the Lok Sabha elections, which was withdrawn.
The CBI plea also spoke about another application that Sisodia and other accused have moved. This was for the supply of relevant documents that are part of the CBI chargesheet in the case. According to this application in the trial court, though the CBI has supplied them with a copy of the chargesheet, in compliance with the procedures of criminal code, the same does not contain all documents. Hence, Sisodia, like others, has sought a direction to the CBI to supply him all the documents.
On this plea of his, CBI told the top court that even though such an application is an exercise of Sisodia’s legal right, the fact that the agency has provided him with electronic copies at an earlier stage cannot be ignored. Therefore, according to the agency, the HC has correctly concluded that the delay is attributable to Sisodia and not the agency.
The CBI has also raised apprehensions about Sisodia influencing witnesses in the case and said that he is also capable of tampering or destroying evidence.
The affidavit said Sisodia “was holding very high and powerful posts in Aam Aadmi Party as well as Government of NCT of Delhi since last one decade. He was controlling around 18 departments under different ministries in Delhi Government. He continues to have great influence over the officers/officials, who have worked under him during his ministership and is highly influential. There are reasons to believe that if he is released on bail, he may influence the witnesses of the case. It is also apprehended that he may also tamper or destroy the evidence of the case, more specifically in light of his past conduct”.
In support of its contention, CBI pointed out Sisodia’s role in the destruction of a vital file of the Cabinet Note and his mobile phone.
The affidavit said investigation was also conducted into the “role of Excise Officials of Punjab Government, who were instrumental in closure of the distilleries of some manufacturers in Punjab to pressurize them to pay 6% commission out of 12% profit margin of their wholesalers in Delhi.”
According to it, one wholesaler M/s Mahadev Liquors did not pay the said commission and the distilleries of its manufacturers in Punjab were allowed to operate only after the said wholesaler surrendered its wholesale liquor license in Delhi in May 2021. However, owing to the influence of the Aam Aadmi Party and its top leadership, including Sisodia, the permission to investigate under Section 17-A Prevention of Corruption Act against the public servants in Punjab “was denied “.
Sisodia was instrumental in preparing the new excise policy, which was prepared with a pre-conceived idea for extending undue benefits to co-accused persons in lieu of payment of Rs 90-100 crore for AAP by the South Group. He “fabricated and concocted pre-decided emails to build a façade of feedback” and “also transferred Rahul Singh, who was then Excise Commissioner, and later on in connivance with (co-accused) Vijay Nair excluded opinions of legal experts and thereafter destroyed electronic evidence,” the agency said.
Also read: CBI to file chargesheet against Kejriwal in Delhi excise policy case — a look at the case so far