New Delhi [India] : The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected the bail petition of Delhi’s former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case related to alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy case.
The Court also dismissed bail petitions of Vijay Nair, ex-communication in charge of Aam Aadmi Party, Abhishek Boinpally (Hyderabad-based businessman) and Binoy Babu Binoy, (manager with a liquor company Pernod Ricard) in connection with the same case. The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma while dismissing bail petition of Manish Sisodia said that the court does not find any infirmity with the trial court order which had dismissed his bail. “The possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out and Section 45 twin condition isn’t satisfied. Bail Denied,” said the court.
The trial court had earlier denied bail to them. Earlier, Delhi High Court dismissed the bail plea of Manish Sisodia in a CBI case alleging corruption in the implementation of a previous liquor policy in the national capital. The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma while denied bail to Sisodia in the CBI case, said Manish Sisodia (Applicant) being a powerful person, there was the possibility of him influencing the witnesses.
The Rouse Avenue Court earlier dismissed the bail plea of Manish Sisodia in a money laundering case related to the Excise scam stating that “this case of economic offences having serious repercussions upon the general public and society at large as the evidence collected during investigation speaks volumes of his involvement in the commission of the said offence.”
Court also noted that some evidence is also alleged to have surfaced during the investigation to show that some part of the kickback or bribe amount received from South lobby was spent or utilized in connection with the election campaign of the AAP in Goa and some cash payments through hawala channels are alleged to have been sent to Goa for bearing the said expenses and even some fake invoices are alleged to have been created as a cover-up for the cash amounts transferred through hawala channels.
It is stated that the above cash transfers were made as per instructions of the coaccused Vijay Nair, who was the representative of the applicant and the AAP and also the Media Incharge of AAP and looking after the work related to said elections and he also roped in a company named M/S Chariot Productions Media Pvt. Ltd. owned by the coaccused Rajesh Joshi to do the election-related advertising work and other jobs for the party during said elections noted the court. Thus, in view of the above background, the serious nature of allegations made and the role played by the applicant in the above criminal conspiracy, his connection with the activities relating to generation or acquisition and use etc. of the above proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 3 of the PMLA and the oral and documentary evidence collected in support of the same and as placed for the perusal of the court, this court is of the considered opinion that even if the rigours and restrictions contained U/S 45 of the PMLA are viewed and construed reasonably, the prosecution has still been able to show a genuine and prima facie case for the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence of money laundering.
