Sat. May 18th, 2024

In the bail hearing of former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in the liquor policy case, the Supreme Court has raised some crucial points. The court stated that the chain of evidence has not been fully established and questioned the lack of proof against Sisodia, apart from the statement of accused-turned-approver Dinesh Arora.

Arora, who was recently granted bail, is an important witness in the case. The bench, consisting of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti, also questioned how the money, allegedly received by Sisodia, reached him from the so-called liquor group.

The court pointed out that the agencies claim that money was received by Sisodia but questioned who actually paid him the amounts of Rs 100 crore and Rs 30 crore. They emphasized that there could be many people involved in paying the money, not necessarily connected to the liquor industry. They further questioned the lack of evidence, apart from Arora’s statement.

The bench observed that the chain of evidence has not been fully established. They admitted that establishing the chain is difficult as everything was done covertly. However, they urged the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation to use their expertise to uncover the truth.

In relation to the charges filed against Sisodia by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Justice Khanna specifically questioned Sisodia’s involvement. He pointed out that while another accused, Vijay Nair, is mentioned, Sisodia is not implicated in this part. The judge questioned how Sisodia could be brought under the money-laundering act if the money was not going to him. He stressed that money laundering is a separate offense and the prosecution’s case weakens without proper evidence of proceeds of crime.

The court emphasized the need to establish the activity connected with the proceeds of crime to pursue charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. They clarified that until the proceeds of crime are established, the case under this act cannot proceed.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s observations highlight the lack of concrete evidence against Manish Sisodia in the liquor policy case and emphasize the importance of establishing a clear chain of evidence to warrant charges of money laundering.

By admin