Following the rejection of senior Aam Admi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia's bail plea by the Supreme court, AAP leader Atishi on Monday said the party respects the Supreme Court but does not agree with its order and the party will explore legal options.
It has been reported that AAP is planning to file a review petition against the apex court's decision.
SC rejcets Sisodia's bail plea
In a setback to Sisodia, the SC earlier in the day rejected his regular bail pleas in corruption and money-laundering cases related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam and said transfer of Rs 338 crore was tentatively established in the matter.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti said it has recorded the statements of the probe agencies that the trial in these cases will conclude in six to eight months.
But if the trial proceeds in a "sloppy manner", Sisodia will be at liberty to apply for bail in these cases in three months, the bench said.
What did AAP say?
Addressing a press conference after the order, Aam Admi Party leder Atishi said the court has given an "adverse order" despite making sharp observations against probe agencies.
"During the Supreme Court's hearing of Manish Sisodia's bail plea, the court asked sharp probing questions from the prosecution. The bench repeatedly asked the ED where the 'money trail' related to Manish Sisodia was. It questioned whether he or his family members had received any money, or if any company linked to his family members had ever received any money," she added.
Atishi mentioned that the Supreme Court repeatedly questioned how it could be a money laundering or PMLA case if the ED could not establish any money trail related to Sisodia.
"The Supreme Court also inquired why the entire prosecution case of the ED relied solely on the statements of one approver, Dinesh Arora. During the hearing, it was argued in court that an approver could say anything to save himself and his statements cannot be trusted," she noted.
Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that policy-making was not within its purview, and even if lobbying occurred in policy-making, it was not necessarily illegal, she said.
"Despite these significant observations, today the Supreme Court issued a adverse verdict. The Supreme Court's order has been uploaded to its website, and we will carefully study all the legal aspects. Our legal team and the AAP will conduct a thorough examination, and our next steps will be decided based on the available options," she added.
She stressed that they respect the Supreme Court but "respectfully disagree with the court's decision".
