Delhi liquor policy case: Security beefed up outside CBI office as agency gears up to produce Manish Sisodia

New Delhi [India], March 4 : Delhi Police, Rapid Action Force, and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel were deployed outside the CBI headquarters, as the agency geared up to produce arrested former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia before a local court at the end of his 5-day remand in the liquor policy case.

Sisodia was arrested by the CBI for alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of Delhi's new excise policy. The policy was withdrawn amid allegations of foul play by the Opposition.
The fresh bail petition filed on behalf of Sisodia before a trial court in the national capital states that no fruitful purpose would be served keeping him in custody as all the recoveries in the case have already been made.
It states further that the former Delhi deputy CM was cooperating in the investigation and had appeared whenever summoned by the CBI. The other accused persons arrested in this case have already been granted bail, it adds further.
Sisodia, in his plea, states further that he held the important constitutional post of deputy CM and has deep roots in the society.
Special Judge MK Nagpal will hear this bail plea later on Saturday.
Sisodia is also scheduled to be produced on Saturday at the end of his remand period granted on February 27.
Rouse Avenue Court on Monday, while sending Sisodia to CBI remand, directed that the interrogation of the accused in the liquor policy case, during the remand period, be conducted at some place having CCTV coverage in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and the said footage be preserved by the CBI.
Sisodia was arrested last Sunday in an ongoing investigation of a case related to alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy of GNCTD.
While sending Sisodia to CBI remand, the trial court had observed that the accused had joined the investigation of this case on two earlier occasions, but failed to provide satisfactory answers to most of the questions put to him during his examination and interrogation conducted and has thus, failed to legitimately explain the incriminating evidence which has allegedly surfaced against him in the investigation conducted so far.
"It is true that he cannot be expected to make self-incriminating statements, but the interests of justice and of a fair investigation require that he should come up with some legitimate answers to the questions which are being put to him by the Investigation officer," said the court.
"Some of his subordinates are found to have disclosed certain facts which can be taken as incriminating against him and some documentary evidence against him has also already surfaced a proper and fair investigation requires that some genuine and legitimate answers to the questions being put to him about the same are to be found and hence, in considered opinion of this court, this can only be done during custodial interrogation of the accused," the court noted.
During arguments, CBI counsel told the court that the former deputy CM's custodial interrogation is required for an effective investigation in the case. While seeking a five-day remand for Sisodia, the CBI counsel said, "The conspiracy was hatched in a very planned and secret manner."
Senior advocate Dayan Krishnan, appearing for Sisodia, opposed the remand application of the CBI.
"If someone is not willing to say something, that cannot be a ground for arrest," Sisodia's lawyer argued.
"What should I do with a phone that I changed? I am a minister, I cannot send it to a second-hand shop, it would have important data. CBI confronted me with the material but I did not confess. The remand application says I gave evasive replies. This cannot be a ground for remand. They search my residence on August 19, 2022. I hand over my phone. They called me to join the investigation and I joined. I cooperated," his counsel argued further.
After arresting Sisodia in the liquor policy case, the CBI released a statement claiming that he gave evasive replies to questions and wasn't cooperating in the ongoing investigation in the liquor scam case.