Manish Sisodia charged as 29th accused in ED’s chargesheet for Delhi Liquor Policy Case

Manish Sisodia has been included as the 29th accused in the excise policy case in the ED charge sheet that was presented at Rouse Avenue Court.

Manish Sisodia has been included as the 29th accused in the excise policy case in the ED charge sheet that was presented at Rouse Avenue Court.

Former Delhi NCT Deputy CM Sisodia had requested temporary bail in the Delhi Excise Policy Case in order to care for his unwell wife, but the CBI objected, alleging that he covered up the fact that she had been discharged.


According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Sisodia’s wife has already been released from the hospital; nevertheless, this crucial detail was not brought up in his request for temporary bail. Her condition has become better, the discharge memo stated.

“Every husband has a responsibility to care for his wife,” Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma declared verbally.

This is the pledge made at the time of the marriage’s solemnization, hastily added senior attorney Mohit Mathur, who is representing Sisodia.

In circumstances when a person’s physical condition continues to be poor, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, speaking for the CBI, said he will be the first to suggest that relief be given.

In the money laundering case connected to the ‘scam’ around the Delhi Liquor Policy Case, the Enforcement Directorate filed a supplemental charge sheet that totaled 2,500 pages and listed former Delhi deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia as an accused.

Sisodia was taken into custody on February 26 and March 9 by the CBI and ED, respectively, for suspected corruption in the creation and implementation of the now-cancelled Delhi Excise Policy 2021–2022, as well as for allegedly laundering the revenue of the policy.

Sisodia has submitted both a normal bail petition and an interim bail application on the grounds that his wife is unwell. Last month, as her health deteriorated, his wife was taken to Apollo Hospital in Delhi. For the past 23 years, Seema Sisodia has been receiving therapy for multiple sclerosis, a condition that affects the central nervous system.

According to the ED, there was a “conspiracy” developed by Vijay Nair, the leader of the AAP, and other members of a “South Group” to provide private wholesalers unfair profits. According to the organization, the excise policy was changed to guarantee private wholesalers a 12 percent commercial profit.

In addition, the agency said that Sisodia had destroyed 14 mobile phones, out of which two were found by the ED, and used SIM cards and phones purchased in other leaders’ names. The accusations of evidence destruction had been refuted by Sisodia.

On March 31, the trial court rejected Sisodia’s request for bail in the case, declaring that he was “prima facie the architect” of the “scam” and had played the “most important and vital role” in the criminal conspiracy involving the alleged payment of advance kickbacks of Rs 90–100 crore intended for him and his colleagues in the Delhi government.

The high court had already sent the CBI a notice requesting that it respond to Sisodia’s routine bail application. The trial court’s decision to refuse him bail in the case has been contested by him.

The claim that he received revenues from crime, according to his lawyer was “all in air” and there was no evidence of a money trail that would have led to him.

The lower court has not taken into account the wife of the AAP leader, who has multiple sclerosis, according to prior statements made by Sisodia’s lawyer. The state of Sisodia’s wife, he claimed, was getting worse.

The CBI has rejected his request for bail, claiming that Sisodia and businessman Vijay Nair are the key conspirators and that the excise policy was twisted to facilitate cartelization and monopolization in the spirits trade in the national capital.

In its written response rejecting Sisodia’s request for bail, the CBI asserted that the AAP leader was involved in the conduct of serious economic crimes and was essential to figuring out the crime’s methodology.

It said that the bail request lacked substance and was an attempt to utilise legal technicalities improperly to obstruct the investigation’s progress.