Liquor Policy Case: Delhi Court To Hear Manish Sisodia’s Bail Plea Today: Deets Inside!

Manish Sisodia, a former deputy chief minister of Delhi, is currently being held by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in relation to alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the national capital’s excise policy. On Tuesday, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi will hear Sisodia’s bail petition. Manish Sisodia was virtually presented to a judge on Monday since he is currently in the Enforcement Directorate’s custody until March 22. In the Delhi Excise Policy case, the court on Monday extended the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader’s judicial custody for another 14 days. Sisodia’s judicial detention was extended by Special Judge MK Nagpal on Monday till April 3, 2023. Arguments in the case on the bail petition are scheduled for March 21, 2023.

Manish Sisodia said in his bail petition to a trial judge that it would be ineffective to hold him in detention because all of the recoveries had already been made. Manish Sisodia added that he has joined the probe as and when the Central Bureau of Investigation has requested him to do so (CBI). Bail had previously been approved for the other suspects who were detained in this case. Sisodia added that he is well-established in society and occupies the crucial constitutional position of Deputy CM of Delhi.

The Enforcement Directorate recently detained Manish Sisodia in connection with alleged irregularities in the formulation and application of the excise policy of the Government of the National Capital Region of Delhi (GNCTD). Manish Sisodia was previously sent to CBI remand by Rouse Avenue Court, which ordered that the accused’s questioning during this time be done at a location with CCTV coverage in compliance with the rules established by the Supreme Court, and that the CBI keep a copy of the film. In connection with a case involving suspected anomalies in the formulation and application of the GNCTD excise policy, Manish Sisodia was taken into custody by the CBI and ED.

The accused had previously been noted by the trial court as having joined the investigation of this case on two separate occasions, but it has also been noted that he has not been able to legitimately explain the incriminating evidence that has allegedly surfaced against him in the investigation conducted so far because he has not been able to provide satisfactory answers to most of the questions put to him during his examination and interrogation.