Documents on excise policy removed from vigilance secretary's office on the day of Supreme Court verdict on services: ED to Delhi High Court

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) informed the Delhi High Court today that there was unauthorised removal of documents related to the excise policy scam from the office of Special Secretary (Vigilance). .ED's Special Counsel, Zoheb Hossain said that the documents were removed the day the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict on the control of services in Delhi. The submission was made before Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma during the hearing of the arguments in the interim bail plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Delhi minister, Manish Sisodia. Hossain said that a first information report (FIR) concerning the removal of documents has been filed and the incident is being probed. "Documents [related to Excise policy case] are still being tampered with. An FIR has been registered," he submitted. Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur appeared for Sisodia and objected to the submissions. He said this was an argument of prejudice and chargesheet has already been filed in the matter. "Are they still investigating? I am behind bars. This is an argument of prejudice," Mathur said.While the Court had reserved its verdict on Friday (June 2) on the interim bail plea as well as the regular bail plea in the money case registered by the ED, a special sitting was held on Saturday noon. Justice Sharma said today that while he had reserved the matters for order, after reading the interim bail application, he thought it should be heard. Sisodia has sought interim bail for six weeks on the grounds of the medical condition of his wife. .The judge was also informed today that as per the High Court's earlier orders, Sisodia was taken to his house to meet his wife. However, her condition had deteriorated and she had already been already admitted into LNJP Hospital. Hence, Sisodia could not meet her.Arguing against the grant of interim bail, Zoheb Hossain said that Sisodia's wife has been suffering from the degenerative disease for over two decades and the six-week bail will make no difference to her but only to Sisodia."He has said that he was the sole caretaker [of his wife]. Please see, he held 18 portfolios. It included finance, education, labour, vigilance, PWD, health, power, home, irrigation and flood control. He could not have been the sole caretaker," Hossain argued. He further submitted that Sisodia had filed another interim bail plea but it was withdrawn on May 24 and there are judgments which lay down that such withdrawal amounts to dismissal unless they are able to show that some dramatic change. .Mohit Mathur, on the other hand, stated that a person's life cannot be so insignificant that her husband cannot meet her even when she is in such a condition. "What kind of jurisprudence are we heading towards," he asked.Mathur added, "Yes, he is the only caretaker. The only son is studying abroad. Would it make a person less of a caretaker if he is holding 18 portfolios? We are busy and dealing with multiple cases throughout the day. But don’t we go back home at the end of the day, and are we not the caretakers of the family?"He further contended that the earlier bail application was withdrawn because Sisodia's wife's condition had stabilised but her condition has worsened since then. .The Court heard the arguments and reserved its order. Justice Sharma further called for a report from LNJP Hospital by today evening.