Supreme Court reserves verdict on Manish Sisodia’s bail in Delhi excise case

The Supreme Court on October 17 reserved orders on the bail petitions filed by former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in separate cases lodged against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the Delhi excise case.

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti questioned additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju regarding the estimated time for trial completion as Sisodia has been in custody since February this year. ASG Raju stated that the trial is "most likely" to conclude in 9-12 weeks, or roughly three months.

However, the bench expressed skepticism about this timeline, pointing out the sheer magnitude of the cases. "There are 294 witnesses involved in the CBI case and over 160 witnesses in the ED case, with roughly 50,000 documents to be examined in both trials," the bench noted.

ASG Raju assured the court that the statement could be tested after six weeks to gauge the progress of the trial. He emphasized that bail could not be granted to Sisodia if the court finds a genuine case against him.

Sisodia faces allegations of making changes to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy of 2021, purportedly to favor a group of liquor dealers referred to as the South Group, causing a wrongful loss to the exchequer by increasing profit margins under the new policy.

The CBI has already filed chargesheets against the senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, while the ED has claimed that ₹100 crore in kickbacks was paid by the beneficiary companies, alleging that Sisodia helped them generate proceeds of crime by raising profit margins from 5% to 12% under the new policy.

In response to these allegations, Sisodia's lawyer, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that even after a year of investigation, the ED is relying on "superficial" evidence to deny him bail. Singhvi contended that the ED could not trace any money trail of alleged kickbacks to Sisodia or his family, instead alleging that ₹2.2 crore was paid to a person linked to Sisodia for changing the policy. This bribe is not part of the predicate offense investigated by the CBI.

The bench raised concerns about the ED's pursuit of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), as the alleged bribe was not part of the predicate offense. ASG Raju asserted that the FIR was broad enough to encompass this, though the court expressed reservations about such an approach.

Singhvi emphasized that the law stipulates that proceeds of crime can only arise in the predicate offense, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case. He questioned whether the ED wanted this landmark judgment reconsidered due to their pursuit of Sisodia, especially given the vast number of witnesses and documents in the trial.

The ED has previously arrested two senior AAP leaders in connection with the excise scam. Apart from Sisodia, AAP Member of Parliament (MP) Sanjay Singh has also been arrested in connection with alleged kickbacks. ASG Raju indicated that the ED is contemplating implicating the AAP itself in the case under Section 70 of PMLA, which deals with offenses by a company.