In the excise policy case, the Delhi High Court denied Manish Sisodia's bail requests on Tuesday, stating that the prosecution had established a "prima facie case" of money laundering against the former deputy chief minister. The court also stated that as Sisodia is "an influential person in the power corridors of Delhi govt," it cannot be ruled out that, if freed on bail, he may influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the bail petition of the AAP leader in cases brought by the ED and CBI related to the purported liquor scam, stating, "The case at hand is a grave misuse of power and breach of public trust by the applicant who was serving as deputy chief minister of Delhi at the relevant point."

The information gathered throughout the inquiry, the court noted, demonstrated that Sisodia "subverted" the policy-making process by "fabricating" public comments to fit his "predetermined goal".

According to HC, pre-written letters with detailed recommendations that suited his personal interests were sent to the feedback email address, rather than really seeking the opinions of Delhi's regular residents on the new tax policy.

In a similar incident, Sisodia's judicial detention was prolonged by a municipal court until May 31 in relation to a money laundering case.

HC claims public voice is suppressed and comments on the excise policy are fabricated.

In dismissing the bail pleas of the former deputy chief minister on Tuesday, the high court pointed out that pre-drafted emails containing specific recommendations on the new excise policy were sent to the excise department's designated feedback email address "under the guise of public feedback or opinion by individuals who were instructed to do so by the applicant Manish Sisodia himself".

Justice Sharma described it as a "deceptive act that was a calculated move to create an illusion that the excise policy was formed after careful consideration of feedback received from the public...but in reality, the feedback was manufactured to justify the applicant's decision to formulate excise policy in defiance of the expert committee report".

The alleged corruption in this case, according to the court, "originated from Sisodia's desire" to draft a liberal policy that would benefit certain people in exchange for a sizeable sum paid in advance as kickbacks. The integrity of the decision-making process was compromised by the excise policy decision, which was based on fabricated information. The voice of the public was silenced "it emphasized.

Judge Sharma read out some of the verdict, noting that Sisodia's appeal fails the "triple test" for bail under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the strict PMLA release requirements. A copy of the decision has not yet been published.

The court emphasized that Sisodia had neglected to turn over the two cell phones he was using at the time, citing damage or untraceability as excuses. The court stated, "In light of the fact that he held 18 portfolios and served as deputy chief minister, it is evident that he was a very powerful person" and that "the possibility of tampering with evidence on his release on bail can't be ruled out." A number of government witnesses have testified against Sisodia, according to HC, and if he is granted bail, he might have an impact on these witnesses.

Regarding the legal team for Sisodia's allegations of trial delay, the court ruled that neither the prosecution nor the trial court had delayed in providing the accused with necessary papers."No fault can be found with ED or CBI as there is a voluminous record of investigation," the HC stated, noting that one of the reasons for the delay was the "insistence" of the accused, including Sisodia, to personally review large numbers of papers.

The HC stated that it can independently consider the case's facts and make a decision on the bail request. It also stated that the senior attorney for Sisodia's claim that this court is limited to the Supreme Court's observations—which were made when the AAP leader's release was previously denied—is baseless. It did, however, order Sisodia to keep having weekly meetings with his unwell wife while she remains in detention, under the same guidelines set down by the trial court.