Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia told the Delhi High Court today that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has no evidence to show his involvement in the alleged Delhi excise policy case.
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan made the submission before Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma in the bail petition moved by Sisodia.
Justice Sharma has been hearing the plea moved by Sisodia against the trial court order denying him bail in the CBI case related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
Krishnan stated that every accused in the CBI case has been released on bail except Sisodia. He added that the agency has no evidence to show that Sisodia tampered with evidence.
Krishnan argued, “They say that I do not cooperate. This can never be the ground to deny me bail. I am not required to cooperate, confess, or answer questions in the way they want. I am required to answer in the way I want, that is the constitutional guarantee.”
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, also appearing for Sisodia, stated that the figures being cited by CBI are just on paper and there is no money trail found.
Mathur contended that “They make me the chief architect of this alleged conspiracy through Vijay Nair. But Vijay Nair was is arrested in September 2022 and released in November, even before the chargesheet is filed. I was only called for questioning for the second time in February 2023. So, all these allegations about my being capable of influencing the witnesses is totally wrong.”
The petitioner concluded their arguments, and the court listed the case for further hearing on Wednesday. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju will make his submissions for the CBI on the next date.
Justice Sharma asked the ASG to explain to him how the excise policy is run. The court stated that the CBI can call its investigating officer to explain the same as well.
Sisodia was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the liquor policy case on February 26. Subsequently, he was arrested by the ED on March 9.
It’s been alleged that Sisodia and other members of the AAP connived to grant liquor licenses to certain traders in exchange for bribes.
Therefore, the central agencies’ case is that the excise policy was tweaked and the profit margins were changed in a manner that benefited certain traders, and kickbacks were received in exchange for the same.
