ED opposes Sisodia's bail plea, alleges trial delay attempt

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has strongly contested the bail application of Manish Sisodia, the former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, in the ongoing investigation into the Delhi excise policy case. ED's Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, during a session with Special Judge Kaveri Baweja at the Rouse Avenue Courts, accused Sisodia and others involved of deliberately attempting to delay the trial.

In a striking revelation, Hossain pointed out that an overwhelming 95 applications had been filed by 31 accused, including Sisodia, over recent weeks. He argued that these applications, many of which contained redundant or fragmented requests, were a calculated tactic to postpone the trial's start. Hossain underscored the ED's consistent cooperation throughout the legal process while criticizing the defendants' strategy of delay through multiple applications.

Details of the Bail Plea Filed by Sisodia

Sisodia has been detained since February last year, related to the ED's probe into alleged anomalies in formulating and implementing the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22. This case springs from a First Information Report (FIR) by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), implicating AAP leaders like Sisodia in receiving illicit benefits from liquor manufacturers via the policy. So far, the case has led to the arrest of 16 individuals, including notable figures like Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha.

Despite repeated bail rejections by various courts, including the Supreme Court, Sisodia has lodged new bail pleas. Hossain argued that while the Supreme Court had recognized trial delays as a potential reason for bail, they should not be the sole consideration. He is expected to continue his arguments on April 10.

Sisodia was recently presented before the court, which decided to extend his judicial custody until April 18. His defence, led by Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, earlier argued that the alleged scam had not adversely impacted the public treasury and that Sisodia meets the bail criteria. Mathur also insisted on the absence of evidence for witness tampering and argued that Sisodia's former role should not influence the bail decision.

The case continues to evolve, highlighting the alleged malpractices within the Delhi excise policy and drawing attention to the significant issue of corruption in policymaking. With ongoing legal battles and pending judgments, the spotlight remains on this high-stakes case, reflecting the wider implications for governance and integrity in public office.