The Rouse Avenue Court on Monday extended former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia’s judicial custody for 14 days in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case. Incidentally, Sisodia is presently in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and was virtually brought in court. The lawsuit involves alleged inconsistencies in the formulation and implementation of GNCTD’s excise policy.
On Monday, Special Judge MK Nagpal prolonged Sisodia’s judicial detention till April 3, 2023. The bail petition in the case has been scheduled for argument on March 21, 2023. Sisodia was practically delivered before the court on Monday, since he is now in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate until March 22.
Former Delhi Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia argued in his bail plea in a trial court that keeping him in detention would serve no useful purpose because all recoveries have already been made.
Sisodia further indicated that he has participated in the probe as needed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The bail for the other suspects in this case has already been granted. Sisodia went on to say that he occupies the crucial constitutional position of Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi and has strong roots in the community.
The Enforcement Directorate has detained Sisodia in a money laundering case involving alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of GNCTD’s excise policy. The Rouse Avenue Court had previously ruled that the interrogation of the accused during the remand term be performed at a location with CCTV coverage in conformity with Supreme Court norms, and that the same footage be maintained by the CBI.
Sisodia was detained as part of an ongoing inquiry into potential irregularities in the formulation and implementation of GNCTD’s excise policy. Previously, the trial court noted that the accused had previously joined the investigation of this case on two occasions; however, it has also been noted that he has failed to provide satisfactory answers to most of the questions put to him during his examination and interrogation, and thus has failed to legitimately explain the incriminating evidence which has allegedly surfaced against him in the investigation conducted thus far.
