In the metropolis of New Delhi, the Apex Court, on the outset of the week, requisitioned a rejoinder from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection to a plea for liberty tendered by AAP luminary, MP Sanjay Singh, entangled in the convoluted web of the Delhi excise policy imbroglio.
Presiding over the bench, Justice Sanjiv Khanna instructed the ED to proffer its retort to Singh’s entreaty. A fortnight prior, the High Court of Delhi rebuffed the plea for bail extended to Aam Aadmi Party stalwart, Sanjay Singh, entwined in the alleged imbroglio of the excise policy. In defiance of this judicial setback, Singh, undaunted, knocked on the doors of the apex court, challenging the adverse decree of the high court.
The high tribunal, in its pronouncement, opined that no justifiable grounds for the concession of bail to the implicated party had surfaced at this juncture. Simultaneously, it mandated the expeditious progression of the impending trial post-commencement, with the proviso that both Singh’s counsel and the prosecution refrain from unwarranted adjournments, safeguarding Singh’s rights as an accused.
A setback in securing bail had befallen Singh on the 22nd day of December in the preceding year, as pronounced by the Rouse Avenue Court in the city. The high court also articulated that the extant law pertaining to the approver’s declaration predates and wasn’t promulgated solely to ensnare Sanjay Singh, a contention espoused by Singh himself.
Emphatically, the high tribunal underscored that the scrutiny of the approver’s statement wasn’t the exclusive domain of the ED; magistrate statements were equally integral. The court elucidated that the approver’s testimony would undergo rigorous scrutiny during cross-examination at the opportune juncture.