Does an Apple phone get outdated in 3 months: CBI on Sisodia ‘destroying phones’

Sisodia was represented by his lawyers, senior advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur, while the CBI was represented by advocate D P Singh. Both sides managed to wrap up their arguments and the court asked the CBI to submit their written submissions on March 24.

Krishnan began his arguments by stating that “all requirements of custodial interrogation are no longer relevant”, the punishment for the offences are all up to seven years, and there was no material to show that he will influence witnesses.

On allegations of destruction of evidence, Krishnan told the court,”CBI is contending that the applicant (Sisodia) ought not to have destroyed his mobile phone. This is not a tenable position since he did not have a premonition that he may need the mobile phone in the future.”

Krishnan also asked the court to look into the fact that two other excise officials in this case “face graver allegations and they were not arrested”. On the issue of flight risk, Krishnan argued that Sisodia has “cooperated regularly and has deep roots in society”.

Krishnan told the court, “No allegation I (Sisodia) received any undue benefit or bribe. There has to be a demand or acceptance… there is nothing in this case. The veracity of witnesses’ statements must be tested on trial and should not be used to deny him bail.”

On allegations of changes brought in the excise policy, Krishnan told the court, “These are government policies which have gone through various steps. Criminal intent cannot be taken because of the government formulating a policy. Lieutenant Governor suggested measures in policy, it was out to him. Criminality against me cannot be attributed. A court dealing with the FIR should look at it with grave suspicion why a government policy is subjected to investigation.”

Senior advocate Mohit Mathur asked the court to consider the medical condition of Sisodia’s wife, who suffers from multiple sclerosis.

“My wife doesn’t have anybody else apart from me in the family. My son doesn’t study in India, he is not here. This is a 20 year old ailment. These are ailments which don’t get cured. It is not that there have not been instances where the courts have considered special peculiar facts,” Mathur told the court.

D P Singh began his arguments for the CBI by stating, “The person that we are dealing with is unprecedented, with 18 ministries. We don’t find that very often. He is the one who handles finance, therefore also takes care of excise portfolio.”

Singh told the court that several excise officers who made expert reports on the excise policy were changed by Sisodia “because he finds three-four things abhorring”.

“Sisodia, the accused, again flared up on the commissioner of excise. He called him whatever he could say to the public servant. He asked for his removal. He may not be a flight risk. He will destroy evidence there is risk,” Singh told the court.

On allegations of mobile phones being destroyed, Singh told the court, “The whole cabinet note file is missing. The excise officer is changed and a new officer is appointed. This change is very short… It is not just mobile phones, the files are also destroyed. It’s not only about telephones. Sisodia says to upgrade the phone it must have been changed. There is no upgradation as such was required. He was using Apple phone, in three months it will be outdated ? It is these chats actually which were taking place, therefore frequent change of phones was happening… A person is a saint till the time his irregularities and illegalities are discovered.”

Singh told the court that if Sisodia was released on bail, “he will compromise our investigation”.

“Investigation is still pending. If he comes out, there are some other officers which we are reaching out (to). There are certain new dimensions which we have to show. It will jeopardise (our investigation), all other persons. He is definitely in a position to influence witnesses and destroy documentary evidence which is yet to come,” Singh told the court.

Singh told the court that there were “telltale signs” in this case to show “it is not so simple and innocent as has been put”.

“It can’t proceed in a mathematical formula that all others have been granted bail. In a relevant case, facts and circumstances will drive the consideration of bail for that accused. There is a public faith in its government that they will act for their benefit. They will act fairly,” Singh told the court.

Singh told the court that Sisodia was angry at many excise policy officials when Indospirits, which was a blacklisted company, was not getting the file of its L1 licence cleared.

“They were ultimately given the licence against all norms. The handedness, the minister implemented and forced people… public servants, private parties, whosoever came in the way was not spared. The excise policy was implemented the way he wanted and the South Group wanted… The influence, interference is writ large,” Singh told the court.

Sisodia’s lawyers rebutted the CBI arguments by stating that Sisodia did not hold a public position anymore, the control of the bureaucracy is with the L-G, and the allegations that documentary evidence is destroyed is vague.