Supreme Court To Hear Manish Sisodia's Plea To Relax Bail Conditions In CBI & ED Cases Over Delhi Liquor Policy

The Supreme Court on August 9 allowed the bail plea of Sisodia in both the CBI and ED cases, considering the delay in commencement of trial in the liquor policy case.

"We find that on account of long incarceration running around 17 months and trial having not been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of the right to speedy trial...," a bench of Justices Gavai and Viswanathan observed.

The bail conditions in question us that Sisodia has to report to the investigating officer every Monday and Thursday between 10-11 AM.

Background

Reference was made to the recent precedents which held that investigating agencies cannot oppose bail citing the seriousness of the offence if they cannot ensure a speedy trial.

After the judgment was pronounced, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju requested the Court to impose certain conditions on Sisodia, akin to those imposed in the Arvind Kejriwal case (that he should not visit the Chief Minister's office or the Delhi Secretariat). However, the bench rejected this request.

Trial Court and High Court did not consider the delay aspect

While the Court held that there was no error on the part of the trial court and the High Court as regards the merits of the matter, it added that they erred in not considering the aspect of delay in trial. The Court said that the trial court and the Delhi High Court should not have ignored the observations in the October 2023 judgment of the Supreme Court that prolonged incarceration and the delay in the trial should be read into Sections 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, which reserved the judgment on August 6, disagreed with the findings of the trial court and the High Court that the delay in trial was attributable to Sisodia. Justice Gavai, while pronouncing the judgment, stated that Sisodia cannot be faulted for filing applications for inspection of the documents - including the unrelied documents of the prosecution- as they are necessary for ensuring fair trial.

CBI/ED's stand contradictory

The Court also said that the stand taken by the agencies in the case was "contradictory", because on the one hand, they said that they were ready to expedite the trial, but on the other hand, on June 4, they sought one month's time to file supplementary chargesheet. If the investigation was not complete as of July, how could the trial conclude before that, asked the Court. In this regard, the Court referred to the statement of the agencies recorded in the October 2023 judgment that the trial would be complete within 6-8 months.

Relegating Sisodia to trial court again would amount to making him play game of "snake and ladder"

Rejecting the submission of ED and CBI that Sisodia should approach the trial court for bail, the Court observed that relegating him to the trial court again (and then to the High Court) for seeking bail would amount to making him play a game of "snake and ladder". A citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post for personal liberty, the bench observed. In this context, the Court added that the liberty granted to Sisodia by the June 4 order of the Supreme Court to revive his bail prayers was to be construed as a liberty to file a petition in the Supreme Court itself and rejected the preliminary objections of the ED/CBI.

Sisodia had filed two separate petitions seeking bail - one, in the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the other, in the case registered by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He was first arrested by CBI and ED on February 26 and March 9 last year, respectively.

By way of the petitions, Sisodia assailed the Delhi High Court judgment of May 21, whereby his second bail plea was rejected. While denying bail, the Single Judge Bench of the 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.

In October last year, the Supreme Court had dismissed another set of Sisodia's bail pleas (in the CBI and ED cases), while allowing him to apply afresh if there was no progress in the trial in three months. Subsequently, he filed bail applications in the trial court but the same were dismissed. The Delhi High Court also refused him relief, following which Sisodia approached the Supreme Court.

On June 4 this year, the Supreme Court disposed of his previous petitions filed against the May judgment of the Delhi High Court, after taking on record an assurance given by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta that the final chargesheet/prosecution complaint in the liquor policy case would be filed on or before July 3, 2024. At the same time, the Court granted him liberty to revive his prayers for bail after the final complaint/chargesheet was filed.

What the Supreme Court said during hearing of the case

On the day the judgment was reserved, 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 state realistically as to when the trial could be expected to begin and end. In response, ASG Raju stated on instructions that the agencies would like to examine atleast 8 witnesses each before (and if) Sisodia was permitted to be released, as there was apprehension of his influencing witnesses.

Insofar as ED's contention that Sisodia was merely pressing the ground of delay in trial and did not argue on merits as he'd lose on merits, Justice Gavai remarked that Sisodia did not argue on merits in view of the liberty given by Justice Khanna's bench in earlier pleas.

A day prior to this hearing, the ASG was questioned by Justice Viswanathan as to at what point a line can be drawn between "policy" and "criminality". The bench asked whether criminality could be inferred merely because the change in policy benefited certain liquor wholesale dealers. A detailed report on the said proceedings can be read here.