A Delhi court on Saturday directed the authorities concerned not to recover the expenses incurred during jailed AAP leader Manish Sisodia's visit to his ailing wife from him.

Special Judge M K Nagpal passed the order "purely on humanitarian grounds" while hearing Sisodia's application in a case connected to the alleged Delhi excise scam.

The judge had, on February 5, allowed Sisodia to visit his ailing wife at his house once a week while in custody. He had further directed that the expenses of Sisodia's visits to his house shall be borne by the accused and it will not be a burden on the state exchequer.

On Saturday, the judge took note of the submissions made by Sisodia's counsel, who sought a modification in the previous court order, claiming that the jail authorities have raised invoices of a staggering amount, exceeding Rs 40,000 per visit, upon the accused and thus, the monthly expenses for the visits come to around Rs 2 lakh.

"In view of the submissions made and purely on humanitarian grounds, the said order dated February 5, 2024 of this court is being modified and it is directed that the above visits of the applicant to his house for meeting his ailing wife shall be on the expenses of the state exchequer and the same shall not be paid by or recovered from the applicant," the judge said.

The counsel submitted that due to this heavy financial obligation, the accused may not be in a position to enjoy the above liberty or concession granted by the court.

He further submitted that the earlier condition imposed by the court was unjust, keeping in mind the financial condition and resources of the applicant. The judge, meanwhile, also extended the judicial custody of Sisodia, along with his colleague in the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and co-accused in the case, Sanjay Singh, till March 7.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) have alleged that irregularities were committed while modifying the Delhi Excise Policy 2020-21, undue favours were extended to licence holders, the licence fee was waived or reduced and licences were extended without the competent authority's approval.

The beneficiaries allegedly diverted "illegal" gains to the accused officials and made false entries in their books of account to evade detection.