Supreme Court: In a set of two criminal appeals by Delhi’s former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia against Delhi High Court’s decisions, whereby his applications for bail in the Delhi Excise Liquor Policy Case was dismissed, the Division Bench of BR Gavai* and KV Viswanathan, JJ. granted him bail in both the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (‘PMLA’) respectively.
Background
On the basis of a letter dated 20-07-2022 addressed by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, alleging irregularities in the framing and implementation of Delhi’s Excise Policy for the year 2021-22, the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs had directed an enquiry into the said matter. Sisodia was arrested on 26-02-2023 by the CBI and subsequently, he was arrested by ED on 09-03-2023. Allegedly, certain provisions were inserted in the existing excise policy to favour the lobby and other members of cartel in liquor business in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy between several accused persons. After investigation, CBI filed charge-sheet on 25-04-2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 7-A, 8 and 12 of the PC Act read with Sections 420, 201 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Upon completion of investigation, the ED filed a complaint under Section 3 of the PMLA on 4-05-2023.The present bail applications moved by Sisodia assailed the Delhi High Court’s decision dated 21-05-2024 in Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3731, whereby his second bail plea in cases registered by the CBI and the ED under the PC Act, and the PMLA, respectively were rejected.
The Rouse Avenue District Court had refused to grant bail to Manish Sisodia vide order dated 31-03-2023, while the Delhi High Court on 3-07-2023 had also rejected Sisodia’s bail application in Delhi Excise Liquor Policy scam in ED’s matter. In plea against the High Court’s verdict, in Manish Sisodia v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393, the Court had dismissed the appeal and refused to grant him bail, vide decision dated 30-10-2023 (‘first Order’).
Analysis and Decision
The Court, on perusal of the first Order, noted that the Court was concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by Sisodia. On consideration of various earlier pronouncements, the Court emphasised that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. In the first Order, an assurance by the prosecution was recorded, that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next 6-8 months, and thereafter, liberty was granted to Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances or in case the trial was protracted and proceeded at a snail’s pace in next three months. The Court noted that since the trial proceeded at a snail’s pace in the period after three months of the first Order of the Court, the second application for bail before the Trial Court was moved. Further, the Court noted that as the second round of litigation for bail had begun before the Court, seven months and four days had elapsed from the date of the first Order. Hence, upon considering the said scenario and circumstances, the Court stated that “relegating the appellant to again approach the Trial Court and thereafter the High Court and only thereafter this Court, in our view, would be making him play a game of “Snake and Ladder”. The Trial Court and the High Court have already taken a view and in our view relegating the appellant again to the Trial Court and the High Court would be an empty formality. In a matter pertaining to the life and liberty of a citizen, which is one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by the Constitution, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post.”
Further, the Court noted that in the second Order dated 04-06-2024, the Court after noting the assurance of the Solicitor General that the investigation would be concluded and a final complaint/chargesheet would be filed at any rate on or before 03-07-2024, the question of bail was not heard on merits and liberty was granted to Sisodia. Thus, the Court said that the liberty reserved by the Court vide its second order, to revive Sisodia’s request will have to be construed as a liberty given by the Court to revive his prayer afresh after filing of the final complaint/chargesheet. Hence, the question on maintainability was dismissed.
While dealing with the question of grant of bail, the Court referring to the first Order, noted the observations made therein, stating that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the Court, unless there are good reasons, would be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. The Court observed that “in case of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period and depending on the nature of the allegations, the right to bail will have to be read into Section 45 of PMLA.” Hence, considering the said observations, the Court refused to accept the submissions made by the ASG that the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA would come in the way of consideration of the application for grant of bail.
Further, the Court said that the trial was far from commencing. When the appellant renewed his request, the Special Judge as well as the High Court was required to consider the said applications in the light of the observations made by the Court in first Order. The Court also added that both the Courts, Trial Court and the High Court rejected the claim for applying the triple test as contemplated under Section 45 of the PMLA, which was in ignorance of the observations made in 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 CrPC and Section 45 of the PMLA.
Regarding the question of delay attributed to Sisodia, the Court refused to accept the said submission, as around 69,000 pages of documents are involved in both the CBI and the ED matters, and he was entitled to take a reasonable amount of time to inspect such huge magnitude of the documents involved. To avail right to fair trial, he cannot be denied the right to have inspection of the documents including the “un-relied upon documents”. The Court said that on account of a long period of incarceration running for around seventeen months and the trial not even having commenced, Sisodia was deprived of his right to speedy trial. The Court observed 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. The Court viewed that keeping Sisodia behind bars for an unlimited time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive him of his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Therefore, the Court allowed the appeals, granting bail to Sisodia on furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. The Court set aside the impugned decisions. Further, the Court directed him to surrender his passport with the Special Court and to report to the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10-11 AM. Further, the Court directed him to not make any attempt either to influence the witnesses or to tamper with the evidence.
[Manish Sisodia v. ED, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, decided on: 09-08-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice BR Gavai
Image Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cj53-2LBwcx/?hl=en
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
