Let’s travel together.

Manish Sisodia did not get bail, Supreme Court reprimanded ED, see what happened in the court – supreme court on hearing on manish sisodia bail application

0 37

New Delhi : The Supreme Court, during the hearing on the bail plea of ​​former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, accused in the excise policy case, asked the ED where the money transactions were. How can the investigating agency rely only on the statement of the approver (promised witness). During the hearing of the case, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sisodia, said that the allegations in this case should be specific. This case is not made out against Sisodia. During the hearing of the case, Additional Solicitor General Raju, on behalf of ED and CBI, opposed the bail in the Supreme Court.‘Only policy can benefit the wholesaler’
Justice Sanjeev Khanna said that the prosecution alleges that the excise policy was changed and this was done so that some special people like wholesalers could benefit. Justice Khanna said that as per the allegations, Rs 30 crore was transferred to Dinesh Arora. The prosecution alleges that the decision was a policy decision and was biased and made to benefit a particular individual. Doesn’t it seem like you are challenging the policy? Additional Solicitor General Raju said that we say that in this case the policy was made in such a way that the wholesaler benefits. We will tell how it was made and what is the role of the petitioner in it.

How can we say that money was given…what is the evidence…statement of an approver?
During this, Justice Khanna said that you (Additional Solicitor General) should tell that sometimes bureaucrats bring something, sometimes they draft and sometimes political people say that drafting should be done in this way and then say whatever they want. The same was not made and legal opinion was asked for. During this, Raju again said that the policy was made for someone’s benefit. Then Supreme Court Justice Khanna said that we understand that sometimes policies are made and sometimes there are pressure groups. Even if the policy is made wrong and there is no money transaction for it, it does not matter. Money transaction is necessary for crime. It is important to ensure that bribery transactions do not take place. Additional Solicitor General Raju presented some evidence and chats before the court. Justice Khanna then said how can you say that money was given. All this is based on the statement of an approver.

How will you bring Manish into money laundering?
The Supreme Court asked the prosecution lawyer to answer two questions. Your case is that Manish Sisodia did not get the money. Then how did the money come from the Leaker Group? You have given two figures, 30 crores and 100 crores. Who gave this? What is the proof that Dinesh Arora himself took it? Where is the evidence? Apart from Dinesh’s statement, what other evidence is there? You have to complete the chain. If the money received from the leaker lobby goes to any person, then proof will have to be given for it and the chain will have to be completed. We recognize that this is a difficult task to prove but that is where your ability is needed. Manish is not involved in this matter. Manish is not a part. How will you bring Manish in the money laundering case? According to you, it is not even a case of attempt. How active is the connection in crime? PMLA talks about active connections, hence PMLA is not visible in terms of crime.

During this, Additional Solicitor General Raju said that he was involved in the process and thus he was actively involved in the crime. Then the Supreme Court judge said that if someone is involved in bribery then he will be considered involved in crime. But if the money is not given then will PMLA be formed? The crime took place when the money was given. You have to connect the accused in direct and indirect crimes.

On the pitch of law only facts will tell right and wrong
Political war on liquor policy has its place but the real decision of right and wrong will be in the court. The accused leaders will have to prove that they are innocent and the investigating agencies will have to prove that they have strong evidence against the people they have arrested. During the hearing of former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia in the Supreme Court on Thursday, the signal became clear that the investigating agencies will now have to go beyond the allegations and talk with consensus. On several occasions, the court also gave a blunt message to the investigating agencies for this. On the other hand, the leaders of Aam Aadmi Party will also have to answer in a legal manner on the serious allegations of the investigating agencies that they had links with the liquor mafia. Apart from politics, the legal battle on this issue is also going to be interesting in the next few days.

This post originally appeared on navbharattimes.indiatimes.com

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.