Supreme Court asks ED to explain why AAP, the alleged beneficiary of excise policy 'scam', not made accused in money laundering case
Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to explain why the political party (Aam Aadmi Party), which was allegedly the beneficiary of the Delhi Excise Policy 'scam', has not been made an accused in the money laundering case. The ED has claimed the AAP used Rs 100 crore received as kickback from various stakeholders for its campaign in the 2022 Goa assembly elections.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti posed the question, as it commenced hearing two separate bail pleas of former deputy chief minister and AAP leader Manish Sisodia in the corruption case being probed by the CBI and the related money laundering case under investigation by the Enforcement Directorate.
«As far as the PMLA case is concerned, your whole case is that it (kickback) went to the political party.
It is the beneficiary and not him (Sisodia), but then you have to explain as to why the political party is still not an accused in the case. How do you explain this?» the bench told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who appeared for the ED.
Raju said he will reply to the court's query on Thursday when the court resumes hearing Sisodia's bail pleas.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Sisodia, said it is a case of regular bail as his client passes the triple test doctrine-he is an MLA and therefore has deep roots in society, he is not a flight risk, and there is no chance of him influencing the witnesses or tampering with evidence.
As per the triple test doctrine laid down by the top court, an accused may be granted bail if he has deep roots in society, is not a flight risk and there is no possibility of him influencing the witnesses and tampering with evidence.
«There is not a single money trail
