Sisodia moves Delhi court for bail in liquor scam case after SC junks his plea

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia, arrested in the Delhi liquor policy case by the CBI, has filed a bail petition in Delhi's Rouse Avenue court on Friday. The bail hearing will take place on Saturday, when Sisodia's five-day CBI custody ends.

Sisodia, who has resigned from the Delhi Cabinet and as deputy chief minister, will be produced in Rouse Avenue court on Saturday.

The CBI had on Sunday evening arrested Sisodia in connection with alleged corruption in the formulation and implementation of the now-scrapped liquor policy for 2021-22 after nearly eight hours of questioning during which his answers were allegedly not found satisfactory.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain the bail plea of Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who is in CBI custody in connection with the excise policy case.

The Supreme Court bench observed that just because the incident has happened in Delhi, Sisodia cannot come to the apex court directly as he has his remedies before the trial court concerned as well as the Delhi High Court.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Sisodia, questioned the need of arresting the AAP leader saying policy decisions were taken at different rung and moreover, no money was recovered.

He also said that the Lieutenant Governor was also part of the policy decision in the excise policy.

As the apex court observed that it would not entertain the plea at this stage, Singhvi withdrew it.

The Delhi liquor policy case refers to a legal dispute related to the Delhi government's decision to introduce a new excise policy for the sale of liquor in the city. The new policy, which was announced in August 2021, aimed to reduce the number of liquor shops in residential areas and impose higher fees on the sale of alcohol in bars and restaurants.

However, several stakeholders, including bar owners, liquor traders, and hotel associations, challenged the new policy in the Delhi High Court, arguing that it was arbitrary and discriminatory. They also alleged that the Delhi government had not consulted them before introducing the policy, and that it would adversely affect their businesses and livelihoods.