A special CBI court at the Rouse Avenue court on Wednesday granted bail to four accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case. These accused were not arrested by the CBI during the investigation.
The CBI has filed a supplementary charge sheet against five accused, including these four. Former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia was physically produced for the hearing of the case.
Special CBI judge M K Nagpal granted regular bail to Rajesh Joshi, Damodar Prasad Sharma, Prince Kumar, and Arjun Pandey. They were not arrested by the CBI during the investigation. The CBI did not oppose their bail applications.
Earlier, these accused were granted interim bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1 lakh.
As per the court's direction, the CBI supplied hard copies of the charge sheet to the counsel of the accused, who moved applications for the same.
The matter has been listed for October 19.
On the last date of the hearing on August 22, the CBI had said that it would file a supplementary charge sheet soon and added the investigation is still ongoing in the excise case.
According to the CBI, Sisodia had played the most important and vital role in the criminal conspiracy, and he had been deeply involved in the formulation as well as the implementation of the said policy to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the said conspiracy.
The payment of advance kickbacks of around Rs. 90-100 crores was meant for him and his other colleagues in the GNCTD, and Rs. 20-30 crores out of the above are found to have been routed through the co-accused Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally, and approver Dinesh Arora, and in turn, certain provisions of the excise policy were permitted to be tweaked and manipulated by the applicant to protect and preserve the interests of the South liquor lobby and to ensure repayment of the kickbacks to the said lobby, stated the CBI.
Sisodia was arrested by the CBI and ED in an ongoing investigation of a case related to alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Earlier, the trial court noted that the accused had joined the investigation of this case on two earlier occasions, but he had failed to provide satisfactory answers to most of the questions put to him during his examination and interrogation, thus failing to legitimately explain the incriminating evidence that allegedly surfaced against him during the investigation.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)