New Delhi : The Rouse Avenue Court on Tuesday took cognizance of the supplementary charge sheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia in the money laundering case related to the Delhi Excise Policy. Along with this, the court has issued summons for 1 June. According to media reports, Special Judge Blitz Nagpal issued the summons taking cognizance of the supplementary charge sheet dated June 1. After completion of Manish Sisodia’s judicial custody, he has to be produced in the court.
ED had filed supplementary charge sheet on May 4
It has been told in the media report that the ED had filed a supplementary charge sheet against former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the court on May 4. It is alleged that Manish Sisodia has earned about Rs 622 crore from these activities. The supplementary charge sheet was filed by Special Public Prosecutor Naveen Kumar Matta. ED has filed a supplementary charge sheet of more than 2100 pages.
Bail plea rejected by High Court
Manish Sisodia was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 9 last in a money laundering case related to the Delhi Excise Policy. Earlier, he was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 26 February. He is the 29th accused arrested in this case. CBI has already filed the charge sheet in this case. The High Court on Tuesday rejected Manish Sisodia’s bail plea in the CBI case. His bail in the money laundering case is pending in the High Court. Manish Sisodia has filed a regular and interim petition in the Delhi High Court.
Delhi Liquor Scam: Manish Sisodia did not get bail, will now appeal to the Supreme Court for justice
Witnesses will be affected by getting bail
The Delhi High Court, while giving its verdict on the bail plea, said that he has held the post of Deputy Chief Minister with 18 departments and the possibility of witnesses being influenced cannot be ruled out. The court said that the allegations are of very serious nature in view of the submissions that the excise policy was made with mala fide intention at the behest of the ‘South Group’ to give them undue benefits. Such acts point towards misconduct on the part of the petitioner who was in fact a public servant holding a very high position.