AAP MP Sanjay Singh has approached the Delhi High Court seeking bail in connection with a money laundering case linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
Singh is presently in judicial custody until January 10, 2024.
Notably, Rouse Avenue Court had dismissed the AAP Leader’s bail plea on December 22, 2023.
Regarding Singh’s involvement, the trial court judge stated, “The evidence and material show the applicant’s involvement in the commission of the alleged offense of money laundering because he is shown to have been directly or indirectly involved in the process or activities connected with proceeds of crime generated through the scheduled offenses case of CBI.”
The court further noted, “The evidence and material are also sufficient to provide this court with reasonable grounds for believing that he is ‘guilty’ of the said offense in terms of provisions contained under Section 45 of the PMLA. It can be said that the conditions laid down by Section 45 for the grant of bail are not satisfied.”
While rejecting the bail application, the court pointed out that it had been endorsed by the Supreme Court that bribes in connection with the formulation of the Delhi excise policy were paid. “It can also be observed by this court that the basic case of ED in the present ECIR stands approved up to the Supreme Court and it has been endorsed by the Apex Court that the bribe or kickbacks in connection with the formulation of excise policy of the GNCTD for the year 2020-21 were paid and it was so approved by the rejection of bail application of accused Manish Sisodia on merits by their Lordships of the said court,” the trial court mentioned.
On December 12, the court reserved orders on the bail application filed by the AAP leader after hearing arguments from Singh’s counsel, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Mathur argued that Singh, a Rajya Sabha MP, was not summoned for questioning by the ED until October 4, 2023, the day he was arrested. The counsel highlighted contradictions in the statements of Dinesh Arora, an accused-turned-approver, and other witnesses. Mathur emphasized that Arora’s statement was hearsay and questioned its credibility, describing Arora as a “tainted” witness and a “guilty accomplice.” Singh’s counsel asserted that the request was for bail, not discharge, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty under the Constitution.
The ED opposed Singh’s bail application, contending that the investigation was ongoing and that Singh’s release could potentially obstruct the probe, tamper with evidence, and influence witnesses. The court directed the ED to submit any written submissions within two days and asked Singh’s counsel to file a rejoinder within a day thereafter.
The Enforcement Directorate had arrested Sanjay Singh on October 4, alleging that he played a pivotal role in formulating and implementing the now-scrapped excise policy. The ED claimed that this policy favored specific liquor manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers for financial gain. Sanjay Singh has consistently denied these allegations, asserting his innocence in the matter.
