Advertisement
New Delhi: On Saturday, Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court has extended the judicial custody of AAP MPs Sanjay Singh and Manish Sisodia till February 3 in a money laundering case related to the Delhi Excise Policy. Both leaders were produced before the court through video conferencing.
At the same time, the court has reserved the decision on the bail of Sarvesh Mishra and Amit Arora for January 24. Earlier, the court on Friday sought the latest status report of the probe from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Delhi Excise Policy case. At the same time, the judicial custody of Manish Sisodia and other accused was extended till February 5.
Rouse Avenue Court Special CBI Judge MK Nagpal refused to allow the accused persons to inspect the documents at the CBI office, saying that sufficient time had been given to all. It also said that the case should be listed for hearing to determine the charges.
Sanjay Singh was arrested by the ED on October 4 in connection with the alleged Excise Policy scam in Delhi. Sanjay Singh was arrested after the arrest of Deputy CM Manish Sisodia. Before his arrest, AAP leader Sanjay Singh had said that the ED was arresting him without any evidence. He said, ‘I exposed Adani’s scams and filed several complaints with ED, but no action was taken against Adani.’
Former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia was produced through video conferencing from Tihar Jail on Friday in the case. On this point, the lawyers of the accused said that the CBI has not yet completed its investigation. After this, the court asked for a status report so that the debate on the charges could begin.
The lawyer also said that the status of investigation by the CBI has not been cleared. Meanwhile, a fresh compliance report has been filed by the investigating officer, stating that the search list has been provided. The court refused to direct the CBI to provide them with the documents seized during the search of Manish Sisodia’s residence and office.
Sisodia’s lawyer said that he has received the search list, but the documents seized during the search have not been found. He also said that the court should see whether the search was legal or illegal. The court refused saying that there is no provision to make available the documents seized during the search.
