The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has reserved its decision on the bail plea of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh, who was arrested in connection with a money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam. The court is set to announce its verdict on December 21, coinciding with the end of Singh’s judicial custody.
During the hearing, Sanjay Singh’s lawyer, Mohit Mathur, raised several points challenging the allegations against his client. Mathur questioned the reliability of statements made by accused-turned-approver Dinesh Arora, emphasizing the need for a clear trail of money in cases dealing with proceeds of crime. He argued that the funds should be both generated and accounted for transparently.
Mathur highlighted that Sanjay Singh’s name did not appear in the initial chargesheets related to the Delhi Excise Policy case. It was only in the fourth chargesheet, filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on May 4, that Singh was implicated as a key conspirator. This sudden shift in Singh’s status raised questions about the consistency of the allegations.
Furthermore, Mathur pointed out inconsistencies in the ED’s approach, noting that while Singh was closely associated with other accused, the agency did not name Manish Sisodia, who is from the same party. He criticized the ED for not mentioning Singh in the flowcharts submitted to the court concerning Manish Sisodia and other accused.
The defense also raised concerns about a new witness, Chandan Reddy, who had initially filed a writ against the ED in Hyderabad but later withdrew it and became a witness in the case. Mathur found it suspicious that Reddy withdrew his writ and turned approver on October 3, the day before Sanjay Singh’s arrest on October 4.
The ED alleges that Singh played a significant role in devising and executing the now-discarded excise policy, which purportedly resulted in financial benefits for certain liquor manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers.
Also read Punjab And Haryana High Court Takes Firm Stand Against Drug Trafficking (lawchakra.in)
Special counsel Zoheb Hossain, representing the ED, argued that the liquor policy was being formulated and, in lieu of that, bribes were being given, a fact accepted all the way to the Supreme Court. He referred to the High Court order in Satyendra Jain’s case, emphasizing that the court must consider past trends and attendant circumstances. Hossain also mentioned statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, which should be considered while deciding the bail application. He referred to the statement of Tushar Mehra, owner of Anant Wines, who claimed that Sarvesh Mishra was demanding bribes for the liquor business in Punjab on behalf of Sanjay Singh. Hossain submitted that Alpha (protected witness) confirmed giving money to Sarvesh Mishra.
Hossain further argued that Dinesh Arora’s statements under Section 164 were given without any pressure or influence. He referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Suresh Chandra Bahri, which stated that some degree of inducement is implicit in turning an accused into an approver. He contended that Arora’s later naming of powerful individuals, despite initial reluctance due to perceived threats, was valid and acceptable.
