AAP MP Sanjay Singh gets bail after 6 months in Delhi Excise Policy Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh, after being arrested in October last year in connection with the Delhi liquor excise policy case.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh in the Delhi excise policy case.

Additional solicitor general S V Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate, said the agency has no objection if Singh is released on bail. A three-judge bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and comprising justices Dipankar Datta and P B Varale, granted bail to Singh and made it clear that the terms and conditions will be fixed by the trial court. The apex court clarified that the concessions given by ED will not be treated as a precedent and Singh can continue with political activities. The apex court further added that it has not made comments on the merits of the case.

Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court Tuesday asked the Enforcement Directorate whether it needs further custody of AAP leader Sanjay Singh in the Delhi excise policy scam while pointing out the fact that no money has been recovered from him in the matter. The apex court told the ED’s counsel that Singh had already spent 6 months in jail and the allegation of receiving a Rs 2 crore bribe against him could be tested during trial.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing AAP leader Sanjay Singh, informed the apex court that his client has been in jail for slightly more than six months.

“Take instructions, whether you really require him after 6 months. Keep in view the role is attributed to him that will be a subject matter of trial…”, said Justice Khanna told Raju.

The bench noted that for the first 10 statements (by Dinesh Arora) there is no implication of Singh. Justice Datta told Raju, “Please keep in mind if we are with him. We are required to record in terms of section 45 (PMLA) that prima facie he has not committed an offence, that could have its own ramifications in the trial. You have kept him in custody for six months, please obtain instructions on whether further detention is necessary or not”.

Justice Khanna said “The fact is that Dinesh Arora initially had not implicated him (Singh), but later on in the 10th statement he does. There is a slight change in his version. When we look at sections 45 and 19 (PMLA), we have to take these factors into account….it has to be tested when he comes to the witness box”.

“Six months he has been….nothing has been recovered, no money has been recovered. The trace of money is not there… you are right to that extent”, Justice Khanna told Raju. After the bench made this observation, Raju tried to explain the absence of traces of money. However, Justice Khanna clarified that the court is not going into that question at this stage but the fact of the matter is money has been recovered and asked Raju to take instructions on the matter.

“Whether you require him or not (take instructions)”, said the bench, asking Raju to apprise it in the post-lunch session if further custody of Singh was required in the case. The apex court was hearing Singh’s bail plea and challenge against the arrest by ED in the Delhi liquor policy case.

The apex court, in its order, said "In view of the statement made, we allow the present appeal (bail matter) and direct that Sanjay Singh be released on bail during pendency of trial on terms and conditions set by the trial court.

However, the bench asked Singh not to make comments about his role or anything in connection with the liquor policy scam. The ED made a concession saying that it is not opposed if the court grants bail to Singh.

The ED had arrested Singh on October 4, 2023. Singh challenged an order of the Delhi High Court, which had dismissed his bail plea in a money laundering case. The ED claimed Singh’s associates, Vivek Tyagi, Ajit Tyagi, and Sarvesh Mishra had close relations with key accused Dinesh Arora.

Section 45 of the PMLA states that a court can release the accused only if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Read More