‘I’m being singled out, not required to answer in the way CBI wants’: Sisodia to HC

He further submitted that there are recent judgments where courts have taken a view that bail to co-accused is also a ground for bail: “You ask me for phones, I have given them an explanation that I don’t have (them). You don’t say what was in the phones as far as investigation is concerned.”

On Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which puts duty on a person who is issued a notice by police to appear before them, Krishnan said, “What is the ground in 41A that I don’t cooperate? I’m not required to confess or answer them in the way they want. I’m required to answer the way I want to… That’s the constitutional guarantee. Police or CBI can’t arrest you or say I asked you a question, I want you to incriminate yourself and you refuse to do so. It’s contrary to constitutional guarantee. Therefore, arrest under 41A is also not made out.”

He also questioned the “prima facie evidence” that tells CBI Sisodia has tampered with evidence: “According to you, a file was missing. What do you have to say there was ever a file like this? Nothing. You have (claimed) destruction of a cabinet file and nobody knows what is the identity of this file except statement of a bureaucrat who has made a self-serving statement.”

With respect to the excise policy, Krishnan argued, “I made a policy. I’m required to make a policy, it was cabinet approved… I sent it to L-G even though I do not need L-G’s approval. L-G made changes and sent it back to me. Therefore, a policy which is vetted by finance secretary, law secretary, cleared by cabinet, sent to L-G, is a subject matter of the case. Why should I be in custody for this?”

Krishnan thereafter said his client is being “singled out”. “The allegation against me… to favour the South group, the profit margin which was 5% in earlier policy was ramped up to 12%,” he said.

He further said Sisodia’s wife is suffering from multiple sclerosis which has been “brushed aside by the trial court”. He submitted that MS is a degenerative disease and she has been suffering for 20 years and it’s likely to get more degenerative. “This trial is not getting over soon and chargesheet has not been filed, another consideration which the court may take into (account),” Krishnan said.

Also appearing for Sisodia, senior advocate Mohit Mathur argued that the entire argument by the other side before the special court had been, “that there is likelihood because of his (Sisodia’s) position to be influencing witness”.

“FIR was filed in August 2022. They made me to be the chief architect of this conspiracy through Vijay Nair who was arrested in September and released on bail in November even before chargesheet is filed,” Mathur said.
He also submitted that Sisodia was called a second time by the CBI only in February and said, “All these allegations about my being capable of influencing anyone etc are not there at all. All allegations regarding money likely to be coming towards me, all that is in the realm of likelihood.”

“There is nothing concrete, nothing on paper; no money trail found,” Mathur said.

The High Court listed the matter for arguments by the CBI on April 26.

Meanwhile, in its response to Sisodia’s bail plea, the CBI said: “That the applicant is the kingpin and architect of the conspiracy herein. His influence and clout disentitle him to any parity with co-accused. The applicant has been confronted with sensitive documents and witnesses and is as such fully aware of the line of investigation. There is every likelihood that in case applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence and influence witnesses, more specifically in light of his past conduct to derail the investigation.”

The reply further states Sisodia, who allegedly has remained non-cooperative and evasive during probe, is a “key link to unearth the modus operandi”. It also alleged that statements made by AAP leaders during “press conferences reveal how the entire effort of not only the applicant but his party colleagues as a whole are to shield the accused herein”.

The reply states that these statements also “undermine the authority” of the Special Judge (CBI) who has taken cognizance of the offences, and are being made to “adversely impact the investigation by levelling unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations against theCBI, thereby influencing and deterring witnesses of the case”.

“Cabinet ministers concerned as well as the CM, during course of investigation, confirmed that the policy was formulated by the petitioner and governed solely by excise personnel, which Ministry was headed by Sisodia,” the reply states.

Sisodia has been booked under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), 477A (falsification of accounts) of the Indian Penal code and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act).

While dismissing Sisodia’s bail plea, Special Judge M K Nagpal had on March 31 observed that he was the “architect of the criminal conspiracy”. He also went on to caution that “his release may adversely affect the ongoing investigation and will also seriously hamper the progress”.

The special court had further said that Sisodia had “played the most important and vital role” in the criminal conspiracy and he had been “deeply involved in formulation as well as implementation” of the excise policy to “ensure achievement of objectives of the said conspiracy”.