Although the judge’s statement seemed to be the last word on the matter, the single-judge bench stated that the prosecution had prima facie proven a case of money-laundering under the PMLA. The judge stated that Sisodia “used deceptive methods to show that the policy had public support though it was framed to enrich a few individuals,” demonstrating a gross misuse of public authority in this case.
According to the court, his actions constituted a “great betrayal of democratic principles”.These remarks go beyond what a judge may have thought when considering a bail request. The penalty was almost omitted from the court’s verdict. Sisodia has been incarcerated for more than a year, and two authorities are looking into the case against him. The ED is looking into the money-laundering allegation, while the CBI is looking into the criminal portion of the investigation.
Source: Deccan Herald
The court’s opinions on bail petitions have been inconsistent over a long period of time.The investigation agencies were harshly criticised by a two-judge Supreme Court bench last year for their lack of sufficient evidence in the case. It had even said that the case will “fall flat in two hearings” and had asked the ED whether it had any additional evidence in addition to the statement of a co-accused-turned-approver.
The agencies were made aware by the court that they could not hold him behind custody indefinitely. This is not how you can keep him behind bars.” Nevertheless, the court denied his request for bail; subsequently, the court denied his requests for a review and for curative measures.
Source: Times Now
The ED brought up multiple claims, the court said, but “there is one clear ground or charge…which is free from perceptible legal challenge and the facts as alleged are tentatively supported by material and evidence.” The other charges were deemed to be questionable. That demonstrates that, despite the bail pleas being denied, opinions regarding the charges varied.
The remarks made this week by the High Court would seem too severe and definitive in such a circumstance. At this point in the case, it’s even possible to question the veracity of claims like “great betrayal of democratic principles,” which are typically made by opponents of the party.The case that came before the court was a bail request, and although it is quite challenging to obtain bail under the PMLA, the accused shouldn’t be forced to wait for hope to emerge. Furthermore, it is unjust to find the accused guilty before the trial even begins.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
