The Supreme Court, while hearing the bail petition of former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in the liquor policy case, has raised some concerning observations.
The court noted that the chain of evidence has not been fully established and questioned the lack of substantial proof against Mr. Sisodia.
Chain of Evidence and Lack of Proof
During the hearing, the bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti pointed out that apart from the statement of businessman Dinesh Arora, who is an accused-turned-approver in the case, there seems to be no concrete evidence against Manish Sisodia.
The court questioned where the proof is against Mr. Sisodia other than Arora’s statement.
The bench further emphasized that the chain of evidence has not been fully established, highlighting the need for more substantial proof in the case.
It specifically inquired about the source of the money that was allegedly received by Mr. Sisodia and raised doubts about the connections to the so-called liquor group.
Establishing the Flow of Money
The court acknowledged the difficulty in establishing the flow of money from the liquor lobby to the accused.
It recognized that everything was done covertly, making it challenging to establish a clear chain of events.
However, Justice Khanna emphasized that the competency of the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation comes to play in such situations.
The court clarified that while Vijay Nair is involved in the money laundering aspect of the case, there is no evidence suggesting Manish Sisodia’s direct involvement.
It raised questions about how Mr. Sisodia could be implicated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) when the money is not going to him directly.
Justice Khanna noted that unless the proceeds of the crime are connected to Mr. Sisodia, the PMLA case cannot be established.
He emphasized that money laundering is an entirely different offense, and mere association with a company does not make Mr. Sisodia liable for prosecution.
The Way Forward
The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing until next week, signaling its intent to carefully evaluate the evidence presented in the case.
It is crucial for the prosecution to establish a clear and concrete chain of events linking Mr. Sisodia to the alleged crime.
The court’s observations have raised doubts about the strength of the case against the former Delhi deputy chief minister.
It is important to note that the court clarified its remark made on Wednesday about implicating the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the liquor policy case.
The remark was not intended to implicate any political party but was rather a legal question raised in the proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the liquor policy case against Manish Sisodia highlights the importance of establishing a strong chain of evidence.
The court has questioned the lack of substantial proof against Mr. Sisodia, emphasizing the need to connect the money flow to him directly.
As the hearing continues, it is crucial for the prosecution to provide concrete evidence to support its claims. Only then can a fair judgment be delivered in this case.
