‘Case of grave misuse of power, breach of trust’ | HC rejects Sisodia’s bail pleas: Evidence tampering possibility

“As a minister having 18 portfolios, including the department of excise, the applicant was entrusted with formulation of liquor policy for NCT of Delhi. However, the material collected during investigation shows that the applicant subverted this process of making a policy by fabricating the public feedback to suit his predetermined goal. The aim was to create a public policy which would benefit select individuals, especially wholesale distributors in return of advanced kickbacks,” the bench said.

“The applicant (Sisodia) had called for public comments on a report submitted by the expert committee for formulation of liquor policy ostensibly to incorporate views and suggestions of citizens of Delhi… other stakeholders… However, rather than genuinely seeking the opinion of common citizens of Delhi, the applicant orchestrated a scheme where pre-drafted emails containing specific suggestions aligned with his own interest were sent to the designated feedback email address of the excise department,” it said.

“This deceptive act was a calculated move to create an illusion that the excise policy was formed after careful consideration of feedback received from the public but in reality the feedback was manufactured to justify Sisodia’s decision to formulate the policy… to benefit a few individuals,” it said.

The “integrity of the decision making process” with respect to the policy was “compromised” and the public’s voice was rendered moot, it said.

“Such action perpetuates a cycle of deceit and manipulation within the corridors of power, setting a dangerous precedent for future policy making endeavours,” it said.

The practice of portraying policies having widespread public support through fake responses, the bench said, is “deeply deceptive”.

It said the “possibility of tampering with evidence” if Sisodia is released on bail cannot be ruled out.

“The petition mentions that he (Sisodia) is a senior leader of AAP. Thus, he is an influential person within the power corridors of Delhi government,” it said.

On the Supreme Court’s October 30, 2023 order (which had rejected Sisodia’s bail plea), the HC that the SC’s directions entitle Sisodia to file fresh bail application in case he feels that trial has not proceeded in the case “but adjudication of the application has to be based on the merits with an additional consideration of delay in trial”.

“It was not laid down (by the SC) that the applicant (Sisodia) will be entitled to grant of bail solely on the ground of delay in trial,” it said.

“This court holds that SC had clearly mentioned that the courts hearing (Sisodia’s) bail applications will not be influenced by previous orders of rejection of bail… which means that this (High) Court can, on its own, independently apply its mind to the facts of the case and decide the bail application accordingly. This court holds that accepting arguments of senior counsel for the applicant – that this court cannot go beyond the observations made by the SC – is meritless since SC has itself clarified that all factual and legal issues are left open,” the bench said.

It also observed it was not the fault of the ED, CBI or trial court that there have been “multiple accused persons, delay by accused persons in joining the investigation” given that the conspiracy spreads over many states with one interrogation leading to another.

“No fault can be found by ED, CBI that there were voluminous records found in the investigation,” it said.

The HC said that the prosecution (ED) had made out a “prima facie case” of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

It also took note of the medical condition of Sisodia’s wife and said that the arrangement wherein the trial court had permitted him to meet his wife every week would continue.