“Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Both ED and CBI Excise Policy Cases”
Manish Sisodia, a senior AAP leader and former Deputy Chief Minister, will be allowed to leave jail after the Supreme Court upheld his right to a prompt hearing. Regarding the accusations brought against him by the ED and CBI in relation to the now-defunct Delhi Excise Policy, the Supreme Court granted bail to Manish Sisodia on Friday, August 9, 2024.
Given Sisodia’s 17 months in jail and the trial’s early delays, the bench made up of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan recognized Sisodia’s entitlement to a prompt hearing. As a result, the courts granted the senior AAP leader’s release if he provided a ₹10 lakh bail bond.
In order to be released from custody, he will have to give up his passport, appear at the police station every Monday, and refrain from influencing witnesses or interfering with the evidence.
Additionally, the court denied the ED’s oral request to bar Sisodia from entering the Chief Minister’s office or the Delhi Secretariat. This restriction had previously been placed in place in a case involving Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, who had been granted temporary bail in order to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections.
Sisodia was detained by the CBI on February 26 of last year under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and on March 9 of the same year, the ED detained him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Sisodia’s request for bail was turned down by the Delhi High Court on May 30, and on June 4 he was also denied bail by a vacation bench consisting of Justices Arvind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta. But after the central agencies presented their respective final chargesheets and prosecution complaints in the case, the bench gave the AAP leader permission to “revive” his bail application.
The Court noted that on June 4, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the ED and the CBI, had promised that the excise policy case would be concluded when the final chargesheet and prosecution complaint were filed in the trial court by July 3, 2024, at the latest.
The oral request from the ED/CBI to bar Sisodia from accessing the Delhi Secretariat was denied by the Supreme Court. To avoid having his bail revoked, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju asked the Supreme Court for permission to move the court in the event that Sisodia made a visit to his previous workplace. While not directly addressing the matter, the Supreme Court implied that there was very little chance that Sisodia would leave the nation or tamper with the evidence.
The Court Holds That The Procedure Should Not Be Punitive
The Supreme Court ruled that the judicial process should not be used as a means of punishment and that the ability to bond out should not be jeopardized. The judges underscored that no one ought to be compelled to roam around in quest of bail. “Sisodia is not allowed to start afresh in the trial court and make his way up to the Supreme Court in order to get bail. “Allowing bail is not like playing snakes and ladders.”
In both of the ED and CBI cases, the Supreme Court ruled that Manish Sisodia would be released on bail, subject to the fulfillment of a ₹10 lakh bail bond. In addition to turning in his passport and showing up at the police station every Monday, he will also be prohibited from tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses. It was said by Justice Gavai, “Every day counts in matters of freedom.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Sisodia has been denied his right to a prompt trial by noting that he has been detained for 17 months and that the hearing has not yet started. The Court made the point that this issue should have received the appropriate consideration from both the trial court and the High Court.
Arguments that suggested Sisodia should be held accountable for the trial’s delays were rejected by the Supreme Court. Justice Gavai stated that no orders were provided despite their explicit request to the Additional Solicitor General to produce any instances in which the trial court had determined that an application was insignificant. He said that there was no record evidence to support the appellant’s conclusion that there had been a delay. The judges stated that it is unreasonable to anticipate that the accused will not require a fair amount of time to review documents.
The Supreme Court Offers Potential Relief from Strict Provisions under PMLA Section 45 Owing to Prolonged Detention
According to the Supreme Court, the trial delays were not considered in the contested rulings made by the High Court and the trial court. It stressed that if the accused has been detained for an extended length of time, there may be grounds to modify the stringent requirements under Section 45 of the PMLA (grounds for bail).
Supreme Court: Returning the Deputy Chief Minister to the Trial Court in Order to Seek Relief Would Be a “Mockery of Justice”
According to the Supreme Court, it would be a “mockery of justice” to return the Deputy Chief Minister to the trial court in order to grant relief. “A citizen cannot be forced to wander from place to place. The June 4 order said that merits were not taken into account and that “the procedures cannot be made the master of justice,” Justice Gavai said in response to the central agencies’ preliminary objections to bail petitions.
The central agencies had earlier promised that the final chargesheet will be filed by July 3 at the latest, the Supreme Court remarked. Judge Gavai drew attention to the fact that the Supreme Court had obtained an assurance from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was acting on behalf of the ED and the CBI, that the prosecution’s final chargesheet would be submitted to the trial court by July 3, 2024, at the latest.
How Did Central Agencies Explain Trial Delays?
Attorney S.V. Raju, who was representing the ED and CBI, asserted that the accused (Mr. Sisodia) was to blame for the delay since he had been asking the court for documents one after another. “Our case would have proceeded, and these filings were inappropriate, but they alone are to blame for the delay—not the agency—because of these applications. It is impossible to explicitly link prompt hearings to a formula. Consequently, [for them] delaying it is the best course of action,” Mr. Raju told the Supreme Court.
Justice Vishwanathan countered that the defendants might attempt to postpone the trial if they were free on bond. Here, however, such is not the case. “If they are on bail, then there could be delays on their part,” contended Justice Vishwanathan. The accused might purposefully postpone the trial and take advantage of the circumstances to obtain bail, according to Mr. Raju. According to the legal officer, the ED might seek the evidence of important people first from among the more than 400 witnesses.
Says the Supreme Court: There Is No Proof Against Sisodia With the exception of One Statement
In the excise scam case, the Supreme Court stated that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) needs to provide a continuous line of evidence that connects former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia to the alcohol lobby. “A chain must be established by you. The liquor lobby should give money to the person. We recognize that because everything is done in secret, establishing this entire case is difficult. But that’s where your ability rests,” Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna said to ED’s Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju.
The Court determined that there was no evidence in the case against Sisodia other than the testimony of businessman Dinesh Arora, who became a government witness.
Why Was Sisodia’s Bail Plea Rejected by the Delhi High Court?
In the excise policy case, the Delhi High Court denied former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia’s bail application on May 30, citing “serious allegations of misconduct” against him. Regarding the probe, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma stated that the CBI depended on the comments made by pertinent excise officials.
Manish Sisodia is named as an accused by the ED in the supplemental chargesheet.
Manish Sisodia, the former deputy chief minister, is one of the accused in a 2,371-page chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over the now-canceled excise policy. The investigating agency named Sisodia as the 29th culprit in the alleged liquor scam and referred to him as the “master conspirator” in its fifth chargesheet, which was submitted to the PMLA court in Delhi.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) responded sharply to the CBI’s arrest of Delhi Deputy
Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in an excise policy case, accusing the BJP of fabricating a false case against Sisodia. The CBI released a statement saying, “He provided evasive answers and did not cooperate with the investigation despite contradictory evidence. Therefore, he has been arrested… The arrested accused will be presented before the designated court in Delhi [on Monday].” The CBI’s decision to detain Sisodia stems from the excise policy case, which the AAP calls dirty politics.
THANKS