Delhi Liquor Scam / Court asked many questions to Manish Sisodia and ED, ED gave this answer

Delhi Liquor Scam: The judicial custody of former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who is jailed in the Delhi liquor scam case, has been extended once again. Now the court hearing in his bail case will be held on April 18. On Friday, he had written a letter to the public in which he had written that he will come out soon. During the hearing held in the court on Saturday, ED while alleging the defense said that the applications of the accused show that every effort has been made by the accused to prevent the trial from starting.

During his appearance in Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court, there was an argument between ED and accused Manish Sisodia over delay in compliance under section 207 CrPC. During this, the judge asked questions to both of them regarding the delay in inspection of documents. The court has sought answers from the ED as to how much time each accused has taken so far in inspecting the documents.

ED gave this answer to the court

Advocate Zoeb Hussain, appearing for ED, said that Sisodia's main argument is on the delay in the trial and as per the order of the Supreme Court, this is the basis for bail. But the accused has not talked much about the merits and seriousness of the crime in this case. ED said that I would also like to answer the question of delay in the trial. It is not that if the hearing in the case has not progressed then the bail petition should be accepted. This entire matter will have to be looked at on merit basis. The Supreme Court has also said that the entire facts should be considered.

ED said that the Supreme Court had said in the judgment that the trial court will consider Sisodia's bail plea without being influenced by the observations made in the Supreme Court's judgment. Now unnecessary applications are being filed, these applications play an important role in wasting time. One or the other accused keeps filing such applications, which shows that the trial should not start. There is a deliberate delay.

ED says that the prosecution is not responsible for the slow pace or non-proceeding of the case. There has been no delay on the part of the prosecution. In the hearing, 95 applications have been filed on behalf of 31 accused. If there has been any delay, it has been because of the accused and not at the behest of the prosecution. The court will have to pay attention to this issue also. If I prove that the trial has been delayed because of some accused and some co-accused, then that will also have to be considered. But despite this, Section 45 of PMLA continues to exist in this case. This will also have to be seen in the bail hearing.