NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Enforcement Directorate to give “a clear-cut picture” on the money trail in the case relating to change of liquor policy in which Delhi’s former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and several others were arrested.

Deferring the hearing on Sisodia’s bail plea by a month, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said that the reply filed by ED on the bail plea of the AAP leader did not establish the money trail and the agency should convince the court on the next date of hearing on September 4.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sisodia, pleaded with the court to grant interim bail to look after his wife as she is ill and there is no one in the family to take care of her. Singhvi contended that she had been suffering from a degenerative disease which was progressing, leading to an “extreme” medical condition.

The bench assured him that it would examine his interim bail plea along with a plea for regular bail on the next date of hearing. The court also asked the agency to file its affidavit on the money trail in the case.
Taking note of the medical problem of his wife which is progressive in nature, the top court on July 14 agreed to hear the bail plea and issued notice to CBI and Enforcement Directorate seeking their response on his plea in Delhi excise policy case.

“As far as policy decision is concerned, courts do not interfere but the allegation is that the policy decision was taken for some extraneous consideration,” the bench had observed.
Sisodia, who was arrested on February 26 for his alleged involvement in the excise policy case, approached the apex court after his bail plea was rejected by Delhi high court on July 3.

Challenging the Delhi HC order, Sisodia in his petition alleged that nothing was found against him to prove that he either demanded or accepted a bribe and the decision to change policy was taken after consultation with all persons concerned, including the lieutenant governor of Delhi.
He said that there was no reason to deny him bail in the case when five other accused have already been given the relief and that the HC erred in rejecting his bail plea.