New Delhi [India]: Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court on Tuesday will hear the bail petition of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia who is currently in Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody in connection with the alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy of the national capital.
Sisodia was on Monday produced before the court virtually as presently he is in Custody of the Enforcement Directorate till March 22. The court on Monday extended the judicial custody of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader for further 14 days, in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case.
Special Judge MK Nagpal on Monday extended Sisodia’s Judicial custody till April 3, 2023. The bail petition in the matter is listed for arguements on March 21, 2023.
Sisodia in his bail petition in a trial court stated that no fruitful purpose would be served to keep him in custody as all the recoveries have already been made.
Sisodia also stated that he has joined the investigation as and when called for by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The other accused persons arrested in this case have already been granted bail. Sisodia further stated that he holds the important constitutional post of Deputy CM of Delhi and has deep roots in the society.
Sisodia was recently arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering matter related to alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD).
Rouse Avenue Court earlier while sending Sisodia to CBI remand directed that the interrogation of the accused during the remand period shall be conducted at some place having CCTV coverage in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and the said footage shall be preserved by the CBI.
Sisodia was arrested by CBI and ED in an ongoing investigation of a case related to alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy of GNCTD.
Earlier, the trial court observed that the accused had joined the investigation of this case on two earlier occasions, but it has also been observed that he has failed to provide satisfactory answers to most of the questions put to him during his examination and interrogation conducted and has thus, failed to legitimately explain the incriminating evidence which has allegedly surfaced against him in the investigation conducted so far.