New Delhi, Oct 30: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia’s bail plea in the excise policy case, saying among other charges, the “transfer of Rs 338 crore is tentatively established”
In their ruling, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti referred to the mandate established by the apex court’s judgement in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case that upheld the Enforcement Directorate’s powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“Referring to Section 45 of the PML Act, in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), the three Judges’ Bench has opined that the provision does not require that to grant bail, the court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant has not committed an offence under the PML Act. Section 45 of PMLA must be construed reasonably as the intent of the legislature cannot be read as requiring the court to examine the issue threadbare and in detail to pronounce whether an accused is guilty or is entitled to acquittal. Further, an order on an application for bail is passed much before the end of trial and sometimes even before commencement of trial. Lastly, it is trite, that for the purpose of considering an application for bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, and, therefore, the evidence need not be weighed meticulously, a tentative finding should be recorded on the basis of broad probabilities,” it said.
Justice Khanna, while delivering the judgement, said that even as many questions remain unanswered, one aspect with regard to the transfer of Rs 338 crore is tentatively established.
The CBI charge sheet has alleged that Manish Sisodia was aware that three liquor manufacturers have 85 per cent share in the liquor market in Delhi. Out of them, two manufacturers had 65 per cent share, while 14 small manufacturers had 20 per cent market share.
“As per the term in the new excise policy – each manufacturer could appoint only one wholesale distributor, through whom alone the liquor would be sold. At the same time, the wholesale distributors could enter into distribution agreements with multiple manufacturers. This facilitated getting kickbacks or bribes from the wholesale distributors having substantial market share and turnover,” the SC order quoted CBI’s charge sheet as saying. (IANS)
