Insight Online News
New Delhi, Sep 15 : The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned till October 4 hearing on an interim bail plea moved by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia who is behind the bars in connection with corruption and money laundering cases related to the now-scrapped excise policy.At the outset, a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti said that it could take up the pleas for hearing at the end of the board today (Friday) or on some other day. “There is urgency and if this case can be accommodated on October 4,” requested senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sisodia, adding that the hearing will require a substantial amount of time.Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appeared before the top court for the central probe agencies.Sisodia has moved an interim bail to meet his ailing wife Seema on “humanitarian” ground and has furnished medical reports related to her deteriorating health condition.On August 4, the Supreme Court had declined to pass any direction on the interim bail and directed re-listing of the case for hearing on interim relief and the regular bail application on September 4.The Supreme Court in mid-July this year had issued a notice and sought responses of the probe agencies on the pleas filed by the senior AAP leader challenging orders of the Delhi High Court denying him bail in the CBI and ED cases.On July 3, a division bench of the Delhi High Court refused to grant bail to Manish Sisodia saying that he was not able to meet the twin conditions for grant of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and the triple test for grant of bail.In a statement issued by the ED on July 7, the probe agency said that it has attached assets worth Rs 52.24 crore belonging to Manish Sisodia, his wife and some other accused persons in connection with the Delhi liquor policy case.The ED had arrested Sisodia on March 9, after the CBI arrested him on February 26 this year.In April, Special Judge M.K. Nagpal had denied bail to the AAP leader holding that the evidence, prima facie, “speaks volumes” of his involvement in the commission of the offence.