Delhi, India: On April 28, a Delhi Court refused bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) case in a money laundering case concering Delhi Liquor Scam.
The Court said, “was not only an architect of above criminal conspiracy, but also the brain behind insertion of clauses of 12% profit margin for wholesalers and of enhancement of eligibility criteria for wholesalers from Rs. 100 crores to Rs. 500 crores.”
“Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant in this case of economic offences having serious repercussions upon the general public and society at large as the evidence collected during investigation speaks volumes of his involvement in commission of the said offence,” the Court said.
The Court observed that Manish Sisodia was connected in generation of “proceeds of crime” of around Rs 100 crores as advance kickbacks for insertion of favourable clauses for the benefit of the ‘conspirators.’
“Now, coming back to the present case, it clearly emerges out from the evidence placed before the court that the applicant herein was connected with generation of proceeds of crime of around Rs. 100 crores in the form of advance kickbacks, which were paid by the South lobby to the coaccused Vijay Nair, through the coaccused Abhishek Boinpally, who had been participating in the above said meetings held with different conspirators and stakeholders in liquor business and the said amount was received by him on behalf of this applicant and his other political colleagues for extending undue pecuniary benefits to the conspirators and members of the cartel, which was permitted to be formed by manipulation of some provisions of the excise policy and by insertion of some favourable clauses therein for the benefit of conspirators,” the Court said.
The Court observed, “Further, even the huge profits of around Rs. 192 crores earned by M/S Indospirits as a result of the said cartel and the influence exercised by the applicant in ensuring the grant of L 1 license and dealership of M/S Pernod Ricard to M/S Indospirits can be related to or connected with the acts performed by this applicant, directly or indirectly.”
The Court said, “seriousness or gravity of the offence and its nature or category, the capacity of applicant in which it has been committed, the manner of its commission and also certain other factors like impact of the offence as well as the possible impact of release of applicant on society etc. are the factors which go against the applicant and force this court to decide against his release on bail in the present case.”
Kickbacks Spent on AAP’s Goa Election Campaign
The Court observed, “Further, some evidence is also alleged to have surfaced during investigation to show that some part of the above kickback or bribe amount received from South lobby was spent or utilized in connection with election campaign of the AAP in Goa and some cash payments through hawala channels are alleged to have been sent to Goa for bearing the said expenses and even some fake invoices are alleged to have been created as a cover up for the cash amounts transferred through hawala channels.”
“It is stated that the above cash transfers were made as per instructions of the coaccused Vijay Nair, who was the representative of applicant and the AAP and also the Media Incharge of AAP and looking after the work related to said elections and he also roped in a company named M/S Chariot Productions Media Pvt. Ltd. owned by the coaccused Rajesh Joshi to do the election related advertising work and other jobs for the party during said elections,” the Court added.
The Court said, “Thus, in view of the above background, serious nature of allegations made and role played by the applicant in above criminal conspiracy, his connection with the activities relating to generation or acquisition and use etc. of the above proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 3 of the PMLA and the oral and documentary evidence collected in support of the same and as placed for perusal of the court, this court is of the considered opinion that even if the rigors and restrictions contained U/S 45 of the PMLA are viewed and construed reasonably, the prosecution has still been able to show a genuine and prima facie case for involvement of the applicant in commission of the alleged offence of money laundering.”
