Supreme Court grants bail to AAP's Sanjay Singh in Delhi excise policy case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to AAP leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh in the alleged money laundering case linked to the now-scrapped excise policy in the national capital.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to AAP leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh in connection with the money laundering case, arising out of the Delhi liquor scam case, after the Enforcement Directorate said it had no objection to his release.

"We are granting bail to Sanjay Singh. He is to be released during the pendency of trial. He can continue his political activities," a three-judge bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

The Enforcement Directorate, which arrested Singh on October 4, 2023, made a concession, saying it had no objection if he was granted bail.

The court, however, asked Singh not to give any comments about his role or anything related to the Delhi liquor scam.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED, said that the central probe agency had no objections if Singh is released on bail in proceedings arising out of FIR and in PMLA case.

"In view of 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," the bench said, in its order.

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.

It also alleged Singh had allegedly received proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs 2 cr in the 'liquor scam' on two occasions.

During the hearing, senior advocate A M Singhvi submitted that Arora had made several exculpatory statements before naming Singh and finally got released on bail after the ED did not object to it.

The bench asked ASG Raju, “Take instructions, whether you really require him after six months. Keep in view the role attributed to him will be a subject matter of trial.”

The bench also noted that for the first 10 statements (by Dinesh Arora), there is no implication of Singh.

“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,” the bench asked Raju.

The bench also noted, “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”.

The bench also noted, “Six months he has been in custody, nothing has been recovered, no money has been recovered. The trace of money is not there.

Raju sought to explain the absence of traces of money.

However, the bench clarified that the court is not going into that question at this stage but the fact of the matter is money has not been recovered and asked Raju to take instructions on the matter.

On November 21, 2023, the apex court had issued notice to the ED on his plea against the Delhi high court judgment of October 20, 2023 which had declined to interfere with his arrest in the case.

The HC had said the court finds no grounds to interfere.

“This court will not insinuate at this stage or impute any political motive to the investigating agency in absence of any material on record and does not consider it a prima facie case of no evidence at all,” the high court had said.

In February, this year, the High Court had dismissed bail plea by Singh saying there are specific statements that Rs two crore was paid to Sarvesh Mishra for Sanjay Singh at his official residence in lieu of the new excise policy made to suit them and generate profit for them. The role of the applicant at this stage cannot completely be ruled out, it had said.

The HC had also said "specific allegations” about the time, place and manner when the meetings and conversations took place between (co-accused) Dinesh Arora, Vivek Tyagi, Sarvesh Mishra, Vijay Nair, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh etc “cannot be disregarded at this stage”.