‘Architect of conspiracy’: What CBI court said while rejecting Manish Sisodia’s bail plea
In yet another setback for AAP leader Manish Sisodia, a Delhi court on Friday rejected his bail plea in the alleged excise policy scam, stating that he was “prima facie the architect” and played an important role in the criminal conspiracy.
In its order, the court said, “Manish Sisodia was ‘prima facie the architect’ and played the ‘most important and vital role’ in the criminal conspiracy relating to alleged payment of advance kickbacks of around Rs 90-100 crore, meant for him and his colleagues in the Delhi government”.
The court also noted that bail cannot be granted at this time as the release of senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader may adversely affect the ongoing investigation and will also seriously hamper its progress.
Sisodia was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with alleged corruption in the formulation and implementation of the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 on February 26, following several rounds of quizzing by the federal probe agency.
Pronouncing the verdict, special CBI judge MK Nagpal said that of the advance Rs 90-100 crore kickbacks amount, Rs 20-30 crore was found to be routed through Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally and Dinesh Arora – the three co-accused in the liquor policy scam case.
Notably, Dinesh Arora has now turned approver in the case.
“The payment of advance kickbacks of around Rs. 90-100 crore was meant for him and his other colleagues in the GNCTD and Rs 20-30 crores out of the above are found to have been routed through the co-accused Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally and approver Dinesh Arora and in turn, certain provisions of the excise policy were permitted to be tweaked and manipulated by the applicant to protect and preserve the interests of South liquor lobby and to ensure repayment of the kickbacks to the said lobby,” the court order said.
The court even rejected Manish Sisodia’s bail on the grounds of the medical condition of his wife.
“The condition of the 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 be necessarily taken care of by the applicant only,” the court said.
