Manish Sisodia bail pleas: Supreme Court says ED cannot create predicate offence in PMLA case; reserves verdict

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in the bail pleas filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in connection with the cases related to Delhi excise policy scam..During the hearing today, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti told the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that a predicate offence has to pre-date the offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the ED cannot create a predicate offence."You cannot create a predicate offence in a PMLA case. We cannot go on assumption. Whatever protection is there in law has to be fully extended and there cannot be any exception," Justice Khanna said.A predicate offence is a crime which is a component of larger crime. An offence like money laundering begins with an offence under the Indian Penal Code, which is considered the predicate offence.Such an offence is investigated by the police and tried in criminal courts, unlike money laundering, which is probed by the ED and tried before special PMLA courts.A money laundering case can be registered only if a predicate offence exists..Sisodia has been in custody since February 26 this year. He is being probed by both The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and ED. The CBI and the ED on Monday told the Supreme Court that they were thinking of adding AAP as an accused in the matter.The scam involves allegations that Delhi government officials had connived to grant liquor licenses to certain traders in exchange for bribes. The accused officials are alleged to have tweaked the excise policy to benefit certain liquor sellers.The Delhi High Court had earlier denied bail to Sisodia in the case, prompting the AAP leader to move the Supreme Court for relief.Notably, during the hearing on October 4, the apex court had questioned why AAP was not made an accused in the case if the party is alleged to be the beneficiary of the alleged money laundering.A day later, on October 5, the Supreme Court also sought to know from the CBI and ED whether there was any evidence of bribery that could implicate Manish Sisodia in the alleged scam.The bench had also remarked that merely because lobby groups or pressure groups had called for a certain policy shift, that would not by itself imply that corruption or a crime has taken place unless there is an element of bribery involved.The CBI and the ED on October 16 told the Supreme Court that they were thinking of adding AAP as an accused in the matter..Manish Sisodia played most important role in Delhi Excise Policy case: Delhi court while denying bail.During today's hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the CBI and the ED, said there would be progress in the trial within six months.Sisodia's counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, in his rejoinder submissions reiterated that there was nothing implicating the AAP leader directly."Nothing prejudiced if I am not behind bars, and they are finding new supplementary grounds while he matter is argued. The argument (of the investigating agencies) is extreme, they say that this very policy was started with a mind to engage in corruption ... We have filed actual contemporaneous report on how prices started decreasing"..He stressed that the allegations against Sisodia were 'far-fetched' and being used to keep him in custody.Singhvi also argued that supplementary chargesheets were being filed in the matter by the investigating agencies to deny default bail to Sisodia..The bench after hearing both sides proceeded to reserve its judgment."We do not take so much time in bail matters. We are closing the case for orders," the Court said.[Follow our live-coverage of today's hearing]