The Supreme Court recently heard two bail requests made by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia. One request pertained to the liquor policy case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), while the other was related to a money laundering case being pursued by the Enforcement Directorate.
In relation to the liquor policy case, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for the probe agency to establish a chain of evidence linking the money flow from the liquor lobby to the accused. The court acknowledged the difficulty in establishing this chain due to the secretive nature of such transactions, but highlighted the importance of the agency’s competence in carrying out a thorough investigation.
The court also questioned the basis for the figures of Rs 100 crore and Rs 30 crore, which were mentioned in the case. It pointed out that there could be multiple sources of funds, not necessarily connected to the liquor policy, and asked for evidence to support the accusations. Apart from the statement of businessman Dinesh Arora, the court questioned if there was any other substantial evidence to fully establish the chain of events.
Regarding the money laundering case, the court acknowledged that there had been a policy change and noted that support for policies beneficial to businesses is common. It emphasized that policy changes, even if flawed, would not matter unless there was a monetary consideration involved. The court emphasized that it is the involvement of money that makes such actions an offense.
The court also clarified that Manish Sisodia was not directly implicated in either the liquor policy case or the money laundering case. While Vijay Nair, the AAP communication chief and businessman, was mentioned in the investigation, the court questioned how Manish Sisodia could be brought under the money laundering act when there was no evidence of money flowing to him. The court highlighted the concept of vicarious liability if Manish Sisodia was involved with a company connected to the case, but noted that the prosecution would falter otherwise.
In summary, the Supreme Court heard the bail requests of Manish Sisodia in the liquor policy case and the money laundering case. It emphasized the importance of establishing a chain of evidence and questioned the basis for the accusations. The court also clarified that Manish Sisodia was not directly involved in either case and questioned the applicability of the money laundering act to him.