A single decide bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma stated the courtroom was “restraining” itself from commenting on the fabric on file in order that “no prejudice is caused to the applicant or the prosecution during the trial”.

“However, since there are serious allegations of misconduct against the petitioner, the petitioner being an influential person and having held the position of deputy chief minister having 18 portfolios, and the witnesses are mostly public servants, a possibility of the witnesses being influenced cannot be ruled out,” Justice Sharma stated.

“Thus, the petitioner fails the triple test in the view of the seriousness of the allegations and his position. Though the petitioner has resigned from the post of minister, but still his position is influential qua the witnesses. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to bail,” the decide stated.

The courtroom stated Sisodia was “undisputedly a prominent leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, which is having the present government” in Delhi, and, therefore, his “role” in any “policy decision, including a formation of new excise policy replacing the old one, has to be extremely relevant”.

“The applicant at this stage cannot be seen saying that he had no role to play. He being the deputy chief minister and minister of excise, was at the helm of affairs. The witnesses in the present case are mostly public servants. Presently also, the party of the applicant is in power. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the applicant is a high-profile person and has potential to influence the witnesses. Therefore, the apprehension of the CBI that the applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the witnesses cannot be ignored,” the courtroom stated.

Justice Sharma, nonetheless, stated that an elected authorities has the ability to determine its insurance policies they usually weren’t sure to just accept the advice of any “expert committee report”.

The courtroom stated that it can not intervene with insurance policies of the federal government except they’re “alleged to have been taken malafidely or have the taint of any corrupt practice”.

The courtroom famous that on this case the allegations in opposition to the now scrapped coverage was that “certain provisions have been added to render undue advantage to a particular group against the illegal gratification having been received from them”. The courtroom stated that these allegations, “if found to be correct”, are very “serious in nature” and go to the “foundation” of the case.

Sisodia was arrested by the CBI on February 26 following a number of rounds of questioning for alleged corruption within the formulation and implementation of the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. He has additionally been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a associated cash laundering case.

On the regulation pertaining to grant of bail, the High Court stated that it’s required to take note of sure elements together with “existence of prima facie case against the accused, the gravity of the allegations…”. It additionally noticed that it’s “well settled” that courtroom mustn’t “go deep into the merits” of the matter whereas contemplating a bail plea and all that must be established from the file is a “prime facie” case in opposition to the accused.