The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case [Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement].
A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan granted bail to the former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister in cases registered by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
“Appeal allowed. Delhi High Court order is quashed and set aside. He is granted bail in both ED and CBI cases,” the Court ordered.
Sisodia has to furnish ₹2 lakh as bail bonds. He also has to surrender his passport and report to police station as bail conditions, the Court directed.
The Court allowed the plea after noting that the prolonged delay in trial has violated the right to speedy trial of Sisodia and right to speedy trial is a facet of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“Sisodia has been deprived of the right to speedy trial. Right to speedy trial is a sacrosanct right. Recently in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case, we dealt with this angle and we noted that when court, state or agency cannot protect the right to speedy trial, then bail cannot be opposed saying that crime is serious. Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime,” the Bench held.
It said that there is no remote possibility of completion of trial within time and keeping him behind bars for the purpose of completion of trial will be nothing but a violation of Article 21.
“Sisodia has deep roots in society and he cannot flee. Regarding tampering evidence, case largely depends on documentation and thus it is all seized and there no chance of tampering,” the Court further said while allowing bail.
Verdict in a nutshell
– Delay in trial has violated Sisodia’s liberty’;
– No chance of trial being completed on time;
– High Courts and trial courts are “playing it safe” by routinely denying bail;
– It is high time that courts below realise ‘bail not jail’ is the rule;
– Sisodia has right to inspect lengthy documents.
To elaborate
The Supreme Court said that High Courts and trial courts appear to be “playing it safe” when they routinely deny bail in criminal cases instead of treating the grant of bail as the norm.
The Bench said that triple test for grant of bail to accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) will not apply to the present bail plea since the plea is based on delay in trial.
“We have noted judgments where it says in period of long incarceration bail can be granted. The triple test is not applicable in the present case,” the Court said.
The Court also turned down the ED’s argument that the delay in trial was due to various applications filed by Sisodia himself before the trial court.
“Perusal of compliance report by Assistant Director of ED shows that it will show 70 to 80 days to prepare one copy of the clone of the unrelied data. Though various applications were filed by several accused, but he filed only 13 applications in CBI case and 14 applications in ED case. All applications allowed by trial court,” the apex court noted.
However, the trial court had observed that the applications by Sisodia had caused delay in trial.
But the Supreme Court found that the said conclusion by the trial court was incorrect.
“When we asked Additional Solicitor General to show any application which was noted as frivolous by trial court, it was not shown. Thus, the observation by the trial court that Sisodia has delayed trial is incorrect and rejected,” the top court held.
The Court also said that it will not relegate Sisodia to trail court or High Court again for bail since the apex court while rejecting his earlier bail plea, had granted liberty to Sisodia to approach the top court for bail after the filing of chargesheet.
“Initially the order dated June 4 has been considered. We have observed that when Sisodia approached this court a period of 7 months had lapsed from the first order of this court. However, Supreme Court took note of fact that chargesheet shall be filed and trial would commence. Liberty was given to revive the plea after filing of chargesheet. Now relegating Sisodia to trial court and then High Court will be like playing a game of snake and ladder,” the Court said in its order.
It will be travesty of justice to note that he has to be relegated to trial court again, the Supreme Court made it clear.
“Procedures cannot be made a mistress of justice. In our view the liberty reserved will have to be construed as liberty to revive the petition after filing of chargesheet. Thus we do not entertain the preliminary objection and is this rejected,” the Court stated.
Background
The Supreme Court had on August 6 reserved its verdict in the bail plea in connection with the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy of 2021-22.
Sisodia has been in custody since February 26, 2023.
The case involves allegations that Delhi government officials tweaked the excise policy to benefit certain liquor sellers in exchange for bribes that were used to fund the AAP’s elections in Goa.
Sisodia had filed several bail applications in the matter to no avail.
His first round of bail applications was rejected in 2023, including by the Supreme Court. At the time, the Supreme Court added that Sisodia could file for bail again if the trial progressed at a slow pace.
He then filed a second round of bail pleas which also came to be rejected.
Subsequently, he filed this third bail plea after the chargesheet was filed.
In May, the Delhi High Court had agreed with a trial court’s April 30 decision to reject Sisodia’s 2024 bail plea in both the ED and CBI cases.
This led to the appeal before the apex court.
Arguments
During the hearing before the top court, Sisodia’s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi maintained that there was no evidence against Sisodia.
“There is no statement about Manish Sisodia or WhatsApp chat with him. No evidence about hawala operators with him, no evidence of WhatsApp chat with Sisodia at all,” he said.
He also highlighted that Sisodia had already undergone nearly half of the prison sentence which he would be subject to in case he is found guilty.
“Sisodia has already undergone half of the minimum sentence here and there is no end to this period of incarceration. I am not seeking default bail. This case is not about commencement of trial but conclusion of trial. Earlier a date was given when it will commence and that period has also lapsed,” Singhvi argued.
He also rebutted ED’s contention that Sisodia had filed various applications before trial court to delay the trial.
“All applications (filed by Sisodia) were allowed (by trial court), and not challenged and there is no delay. The test is whether the accused has sabotaged the trial and not whether (he filed) applications filed one after another,” Singhvi said.
However, ED argued Sisodia had filed multiple applications before the trial court seeking supply of various documents and that had led to the delay in trial.
“Our trial would have commenced and these documents were unwarranted but just because of these applications. Delay is completely attributable to them and not to the agency. Speedy trial cannot be fitted in a straightjacket formula and it is case by case basis and they don’t want this to be heard on merits. So the best option (for them) is to delay it,” he said.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who appeared for ED, also said that if let out, Sisodia could tamper with evidence and influence witnesses.
“There are some important witnesses who can be examined and may be tampered. These witnesses could be influenced and there is a likelihood for the same,” he said
Before the apex court, Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhari along with advocates Vivek Jain, Mohd Irshad, Amit Bhandari, Karan Sharma, Rajat Jain, Sadiq Noor, Mohit Siwach and Shailesh Chauhan appeared for Manish Sisodia.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and advocates Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Vivek Gaurav, Hitarth Raja, Abhipriya, Sweta Desai, Aakriti Mishra, Arvind Kumar Sharma and Mukesh Kumar Maroria appeared for the ED and the CBI.