Introduction
The former deputy chief minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia has been granted bail in the Delhi Excise Policy case by the Supreme Court on August 9, 2024. The bench of Justices B R Gavai and KV Viswanathan said that the trial is yet to being even after a long delay of 17 months, and remarked that Sisodia has been denied right to speedy trial in the case, making it a fit case for granting bail notwithstanding the restrictive bail conditions of the triple test imposed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The court said the possibility of trial commencing anytime soon is not even remotely possible given the pending examination of 493 witnesses and thousands of documents, and further observed that it would be travesty of justice to keep Sisodia in unlimited period of custody until trial is completed, which would effectively violate his personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench said Sisodia posed no flight risk as he has deep roots in the society and the possibility of tampering with the evidence is unlikely given that most of the evidence is in the form of documentary evidence. The SC also rejected the prosecution plea which asked it to impose restrictions on Sisodia to prevent him from visiting Delhi Secretariat and CM Office. The court granted bail on the condition of furnishing bail bonds worth 10 lakh rupees and asked Sisodia to deposit his passport to the Special Court. It further ordered Sisodia to report to the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10-11 AM and instructed him not to make any attempts to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
Significantly, the SC relied on a series of judicial precedents emphasising the importance of speedy trial and cited Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693), in which the apex court had underscored that the accused has the right to speedy trial irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. The court noted that Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh traces a plethora of judicial precedents concerning bail jurisprudence, including, Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [(1978) 1 SCC 240], Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565], Hussainara Khatoon and Others (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81], Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713], and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another [(2022) 10 SCC 51].
Notably, the apex court was jointly hearing the two bail applications filed by Sisodia against the cases registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation. In the present case, the court was hearing the appeal against the Delhi High Court order dated May 21, 2024, which rejected Sisodia’s bail applications in the said cases.
The case against the former Deputy CM was first registered by the CBI through FIR No. RC0032022A0053 of 2022 on August 17, 2022 following the letter issued on July 20 by Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Vinai Saxena, alleging irregularities in the framing and implementation of Delhi Excise Policy for the year 2021-22 and the subsequent enquiry ordered by the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, through Office Memorandum dated July 22, 2022. A separate case based on the same facts was registered by the ED on August 22, 2022. The CBI had filed the chargesheet on April 25, 2023 under Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The ED subsequently filed its own complaint under Section 3 of the PMLA Act on May 4, 2023. Furthermore, several additional supplementary chargesheets have been filed by the CBI and ED in their respective cases.
Brief background about the case
Manish Sisodia was first arrested by the CBI on February 26, 2023, just a day after CBI officials quizzed him several hours regarding the Delhi Excise Policy case. The investigative agency said that he did not cooperate in the investigation and was found giving vague responses. From the time of his arrest, the present bail applications constituted third round of appeal after his earlier bail pleas were rejected by the trial court, the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court.
The first application for regular bail pertaining to the CBI case was rejected by the Delhi High Court on May 30, 2023, followed by another rejection of regular bail plea on July 3, 2023 by the same High Court, this time regarding the PMLA case filed by the Enforcement Directorate. Later, the Supreme Court also rejected Sisodia’s bail applications in both the CBI and ED matters on October 30, 2023. While rejecting the bail plea, the SC said that Sisodia would be free to move fresh application if the trial does not conclude within next 6-8 months or if the trial moves at a “snail’s pace” in the next three months.
The second round of bail application was filed before the trial court on January 27, 2024, during which he was provided interim protection. However, his bail application was finally rejected on April 30, 2024, as the court found no change in circumstances of the case. Sisodia again moved before the Delhi HC on May 2, 2024, but his bail plea was once again rejected by the HC on May 21, 2024. Subsequently, the appeal was filed in the SC and during the hearing on June 4, 2024, the prosecution assured the court that the investigation would be complete by July 3, 2024.
On July 16, 2024, the apex court issued notice on fresh bail applications filed by Sisodia after the investigative agencies filed their final chargesheets in the given cases. The present judgement was reserved on August 6, 2024, and was finally pronounced on August 9.
Judgement
As the bench granted bail to Sisodia, it cautioned that jail should be used a means of punishment when even the trial is not complete and the guilt of the accused is yet to be determined. It said that when the trial is unlikely to conclude in foreseeable time, the application for the bail may be meritorious. Commenting on Sisodia’s involvement in the alleged irregularities, the apex court reiterated its October 30, 2023 judgement wherein it had stated that “Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The allegations have to be established and proven. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML Act.”
The court also rejected the argument of the prosecution that Sisodia himself delayed the trial and therefore should not be granted bail, and said that “A perusal of the material placed on record would clearly reveal that far from the trial being concluded within a period of 6-8 months, it is even yet to commence. Though in the first order of this Court, liberty was reserved to move afresh for bail if the trial proceeded at a snail’s pace within a period of three months from the date of the said order, the commencement of the trial is yet to see the light of the day.” The bench said that “It is to be noted that there are around 69,000 pages of documents involved in both the CBI and the ED matters. Taking into consideration the huge magnitude of the documents involved, it cannot be stated that the accused is not entitled to take a reasonable time for inspection of the said documents.” It further said that relegating Sisodia to first approach trial court and then High Court again “would be making him play a game of ‘Snake and Ladder’.” The court also cited Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024 SCC OnLine SC 934) to emphasise on Article 21 of the Constitution and importance of personal liberty.
The bench also criticised the conduct of trial court and the High Court in strictly applying the triple test used to consider bail application, and stated that “The courts below have rejected the claim of the appellant applying the triple test as contemplated under Section 45 of the PMLA. In our view, this is in ignorance of the observations made by this Court in paragraph 28 of the first order wherein this Court specifically observed that right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA”.
The apex court questioned that conduct of lower courts has it said that “the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail.” The bench also reiterated that the settled principle remains that bail is the rule and jail is exception, and not the otherwise.
Based on these arguments, the court granted bail to Sisodia in both the cases after a long incarceration of 17 months. After the relief was granted, Sisodia finally walked out of jail on August 9.
The Supreme Court judgement on Sisodia’s bail can be read here:
Related:
PMLA Bail Conditions: Relaxation for Women, Sick & Infirm | CJP
ED a ‘vengeful complainant’: Mumbai PMLA court | SabrangIndia