'Some Incongruency' In ED's Stance That Manish Sisodia Delayed Trial, Says Supreme Court; Reserves Judgment On Bail Plea

The Supreme Court today reserved verdict on the petitions filed by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia seeking bail in the liquor policy case.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan heard the pleas and reserved orders upon hearing Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi (for Sisodia) and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for respondent-authorities).

During the hearing, the bench flagged an apparent incongruency between ED's stances, as on one hand, it claimed that trial could have commenced had Sisodia not delayed it by filing unwarranted applications, but on the other, it sought time on June 4, 2024 (till July 3) to collate data and file a final chargesheet/prosecution complaint.

"Last chargesheet comes on 28th June...then you tell Supreme Court we are in the process of filing supplementary...this means that even you felt unless all chargesheets were filed...trial can't(start)...Now to say that you could have proceeded and they delayed...some incongruency is there", orally observed Justice Viswanathan.

The judge also asked ED to realistically say as to when the trial can end.

"Realistically you tell me, when do you see the end of the tunnel considering there are 493 witnesses?," Justice Viswanathan asked the ASG.

The hearing witnessed the ASG argue that Sisodia's present plea was centred on the ground of delay in trial and the same was protracted by Sisodia himself on account of unwarranted applications. It was claimed that Sisodia filed applications seeking unrelied upon documents, legible copies of documents, etc. even though they were not required (or were furnished digitally); instead, he should have preferred an application for discharge.

The ASG took the argument further by averring that if Sisodia did not want to prefer a discharge application, he should have informed the trial court so that charges were framed. But the same was not done, with a view to avoid framing of charge. He also contended that if Sisodia is released, there is an apprehension of his tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

These submissions were vehemently objected to by Sr Adv Singhvi, who claimed that most of Sisodia's applications were allowed by the trial court. The senior counsel further pled that the ground of tampering (as argued) was being taken for the first time and was intended to prejudice the court against Sisodia's interim release.

When the court enquired from the ASG as to by when trial could be expected to commence and conclude, it was replied that the agency would open the prosecution statement (Section 226 CrPC) on August 12 and trial may be conducted on day-to-day basis.

Taking exception to this, Singhvi exclaimed, "My learned friend is suggesting that trial will go day-to-day without S.207 starting now? Without framing of charge of 40 accused? Why? Because it is important to keep this one person in jail? We have to be real".

After hearing the counsels at length, the bench reserved its orders.

Pertinently, when the matter was heard yesterday, Justice Viswanathan posed to the ASG as to at what point a line can be drawn between "policy" and "criminality". A detailed report on the said proceedings can be read here.

The case in brief

Sisodia has moved the Supreme Court assailing the Delhi High Court order dated May 21 whereby his second bail plea was rejected. He is seeking bail in the cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act respectively, in relation to the alleged liquor policy scam. He was first arrested by CBI and ED on February 26 and March 9 last year, respectively.

While denying bail, the Single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court noted that Sisodia's case depicted a grave misuse of power and breach of trust. Further, it opined that the material collected in the matter showed that Sisodia subverted the process of making the excise policy by fabricating public feedback to suit his goal.

Background

To recap, on June 4, the Supreme Court had disposed of Sisodia's earlier bail plea after taking on record an assurance given by Solicitor General of India that the chargesheet/prosecution complaint in the liquor policy case would be filed on or before July 3, 2024. At the same time, the Court granted Sisodia liberty to revive his prayers for bail after the final complaint/chargesheet was filed.

On July 8, Sr Adv Singhvi mentioned Sisodia's application for urgent listing before the Chief Justice of India. He stressed that Sisodia has been in jail for 16 months and that the trial must conclude. Following this, the matter was listed on July 11 before a three-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar. However, the matter got adjourned as Justice Sanjay Kumar recused from the hearing of the case.

Sisodia's pleas were next listed on July 16, when a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol and KV Viswanathan issued notice on them, upon hearing Advocate Vivek Jain (appearing for Sisodia), who argued that the leader has remained in custody for 16 months and the trial is at the same stage as it was in October, 2023, when he was given liberty to come back if the trial does not progress.

On July 29, ASG Raju objected to the maintainability of the new petitions filed by Sisodia, submitting that the June 4 order of the Court only enabled Sisodia to file fresh bail applications in the trial court.

However, the bench noted that in the June 4 order, there was consideration on merits and Sisodia was granted liberty to revive his bail pleas once the CBI/ED filed the chargesheet/prosecution complaint. It was further pointed out by the bench that the period of 6-8 months fixed by the top Court for completion of the trial, as per the order passed on October 30 last year, was already over.

In response, the ASG submitted that the delay was attributable to Sisodia. Be that as it may, the matter was adjourned at the request of the ASG, who sought time on behalf of CBI and ED to place the counter-affidavits on record.

Case Title:

[1] Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) No. 8781/2024;

[2] Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 8772/2024