Delhi Excise Scam: CBI opposes Manish Sisodia bail plea in Supreme Court; says he engaged in conspiracy with South Indian accused

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi minister Manish Sisodia engaged in criminal conspiracy with accused from South India to monopolise and cartelise liquor trade in the national capital, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has told the Supreme Court..In a counter-affidavit filed on July 27, the central agency contended that the former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister fabricated public opinion regarding the erstwhile Delhi excise policy."Petitioner ... [engaged] in criminal conspiracy with the accused persons from South India and others with pre-conceived idea to manipulate the Excise Policy to facilitate the monopolization and cartelization of wholesale and retail liquor trade in Delhi," the affidavit said.The ailment of Sisodia's wife, on the basis of which temporary interim medical bail is being pressed, is not new, the central agency added.Rather its treatment has been going on for 23 years, the CBI contended."The condition of wife of the applicant as revealed through these documents cannot be considered to be severe or serious enough to release the applicant on bail and the same also cannot be taken to mean that she cannot take care of herself or has to necessarily taken care of by the applicant only ... the Petitioner withdrew [medical bail plea before the Delhi High Court]... after it was pointed out before the Hon'ble High Court that the Petitioner had suppressed vital facts in relation to the discharge of his wife from the hospital," the affidavit said.It was further submitted that Sisodia does not meet the triple test for bail in such cases, as he is politically influential, has already destroyed evidence, and been non-cooperative during questioning.The affidavit was filed opposing the plea for bail filed by Sisodia.A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan had sought responses from Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the bail plea of Sisodia in the case..Sisodia, who is embroiled in the excise policy scam case, moved the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court orders denying him bail in the cases registered against him by the CBI and the ED. The Delhi High Court had, on July 3, denied bail to Sisodia in the ED case. On May 30, it had rejected Sisodia's bail plea in the CBI case in relation to the same scam..The scam allegedly involves officials of the Delhi government conniving to grant liquor licenses to certain traders in exchange for bribes.The central agency's case is that the excise policy was tweaked and the profit margins changed to benefit certain traders and kickbacks were received in exchange for the same.The ED and the CBI registered cases in relation to the alleged scam after Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) VK Saxena recommended a CBI probe based on a report by the Delhi Chief Secretary. The report claimed that Sisodia violated statutory provisions and notified a policy that had significant financial implications.Although Sisodia was not named in the CBI's chargesheet initially, the CBI filed an additional chargesheet later arraying him as an accused in the case..It is Sisodia's stance that the policy and the changes made in it were approved by the LG and that CBI is now going after the policy decisions of an elected government.According to Sisodia, no money has been traced to him and the agencies are re-evaluating a liquor policy that was formulated by the elected government and approved by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi. .However, the CBI's affidavit has refuted Sisodia's arguments stating that its probe into the matter has revealed that a major part of the alleged ill-gotten money in the matter, amounting to around ₹44.54 crore, was used by the AAP for making cash payments through hawala channels to different vendors and volunteers during the recently-concluded Goa Legislative Assembly elections.The central agency stressed that economic offences are of a different class and detrimental to the interests of the country."In such cases, public interest must take precedence over individual liberties, more specifically when the allegations are prima facie made out and there is a clear case of not only destruction of critical evidence, but also a situation of misuse of power to influence people connected to the case and derail investigation," the agency submitted.The investigation is ongoing as to the role of other public servants who acted in connivance, as well as other beneficiaries of bribes, it was stated.