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

Bail under PMLA: Part 2 | CJP

ED a ‘vengeful complainant’: Mumbai PMLA court | SabrangIndia

The post Supreme Court grants bail to Manish Sisodia in excise policy case after 17 months of incarceration appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As Delhi now touches new peaks of rising Covid-19 cases each day, so does the confusion on new protocols and orders, followed by roll backs being issued regularly. On Tuesday June 23, Delhi’s  Deputy CM Manish Sisodia announced that he is writing to Lt Governor Anil Baijal to withdraw his latest order that made it mandatory for those who test positive for Covid-19 to go to a government-run quarantine centre for ‘clinical assessment’.

“Why should one go to a quarantine centre for checkup? Has he made any mistake? At a time when the government should help him, we are giving him punishment of standing in long queues,” said Sisodia via an online press conference.

This new order said Deputy CM Manish Sisodia has increased the workload on an already taxed system. He said it also put additional pressure on the city’s ambulance system which is needed to prioritise taking unwell patients to hospital, but now will also be needed to take asymptomatic people to the centers for assessment. Sisodia has asked the Lt Governor to convene a meeting of the State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) and re-implement the Delhi Government’s original plans of sending medical teams home to assess conditions of patients. 

“I have written a letter to LG Sahab urging to call a meeting of SDMA immediately to implement the old system of sending ‘medical teams at home’ instead of this system.

कोरोना के सभी नए मरीज़ों को कोरंटीन सेंटर जाकर जाँच कराने के आदेश ने लोगों के लिए मुसीबत खड़ी कर दो है.

मैंने एलजीसाहब को पत्र लिखकर इस व्यवस्था की जगह ‘घर पर ही मेडिकल टीम भेजने’ की पुरानी व्यवस्था लागू कराने के लिए तुरंत SDMA की मीटिंग बुलाने का आग्रह किया है. pic.twitter.com/SBEWGcR0YK

— Manish Sisodia (@msisodia) June 23, 2020

The Lt Governor’s order, said Sisodia, also adds a great deal of stress on the citizen, who will now have to go and stand in crowded lines for hours to get tested. The person, even if asymptomatic, can also put others at risk, reminded Sisodia.  “People are facing problems. What wrong have they done? They are scared of going to the centres and fear getting sicker, they are tired. But  if they do not go to these centres, they get calls from police and district administration,” he said.

So far, home isolation has been working well, especially for asymptomatic patients. Atishi, a senior leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, and the party spokesman Akshay Mhatre, both tested positive for Covid-19 and have been under home isolation. They wrote an opinion piece in The Hindustan Times to share their personal experience with home isolation and said it benefited their health and well-being. Once they tested positive the two were contacted in their respective residences by a “government telemedicine service that offered medical advice.” They were also visited by an ASHA health worker who confirmed they had mild symptoms and then she “pasted a sticker next to our main doors, giving neighbours fair warning.” 

They write that while under home isolation their health was monitored daily via the state government’s tele-monitoring service. “An emergency phone number was also given to us to be called if our symptoms were to escalate. An ambulance would take us to a hospital if we were to report any escalation in symptoms,” they wrote. Things were smooth till the Lt Governor’s order ending home isolation, which was then rolled back soon enough. 

“One of the lessons of governance the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has learnt is — do not fix something that is not broken.The thought of being dragged into a railway coach parked at the Anand Vihar station upon testing positive would have driven away people from voluntarily coming forward to test themselves. And if asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients refuse testing and carry on with their lives, they would have ended up infecting others,” wrote the AAP leaders.

A point that Sisodia also put in his official statement, “After Lt Governor ordered that every #COVID positive patient is required to visit a quarantine centre for clinical assessment, a lot of pressure is being built on people. So, I have written a letter to LG requesting him to withdraw this order. The former system was better, wherein govt’s team used to visit patients’ residence for clinical assessment.”

According to the opinion written by Atishi, “Data on Delhi’s home isolation programme shows why it is highly recommended around the world. Only 6% of all positive patients under home isolation have been required to be shifted to a hospital or quarantine facility during their home isolation period. Of more than 27,000 patients who have been under home isolation thus far, only 1,618 reported a deterioration in their symptoms and had to be shifted to hospitals.”

Earlier the Delhi  government had announced that testing for Covid-19 had been tripled to around 18,000 tests each day. It was also announced that the Delhi government will loan Pulse Oximeters to those under home isolation to keep a check on the oxygen levels in their body. 

Delhi’s Covid-19 situation is now being monitored by Union Home Minister Amit Shah who has chaired a number of meetings in the past few days. As reported across the media, these meetings have been attended by Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, deputy CM Manish Sisodia, lieutenant governor Anil Baijal, Union health minister Harsh Vardhan and other senior officials to discuss the action plan. A committee of experts being consulted includes: AIIMS director Dr Randeep Guleria, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) director general Dr Balram Bhargava and Niti Aayog member Dr VK Paul. 

According to an HT report apart from protocols and strategies such as  better containment of areas, a wider range of contact tracing, rapid antibody testing, the Delhi Police has also empowered to “enforce social distancing norms,” and impose fines on those people violating them or not wearing face masks.

The Delhi government has to put in place a revised  strategy in place by June 26. The Union govt committee said that there should be “a 100% survey of all containment zones by June 30, and by July 6, there should be an extensive survey of the entire Capital.” The serological survey will be conducted between June 27 and July 10.

According to official data Delhi had recorded more than  62,655 positive cases with 2,909 added in a single day on June 22. Around 23,820 cases remain active, the city has also recorded around 2,233 deaths at last count.

Delhi’s health minister Satyendra Jain remains under treatment for Covid-19 at a private hospital. 

Related:

No plans for another lockdown: Delhi CM

The post Sisodia urges Baijal to withdraw order ending home isolation appeared first on SabrangIndia.