Supreme Court says Sisodia deprived of right to speedy trial; grants bail

Today, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court granted bail to former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia in the Delhi liquor policy case. Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan wrote that “on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial.”

Notably, the Court granted bail in the arrests by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as well as the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 

Sisodia’s bail petition has had three rounds in the top Court, by three different Division Benches. In the first two rounds, the Supreme Court gave time to the investigative agencies to submit their report and for the Trial Court to commence hearings. In the third round which completed today, the bench granted bail, noting that the “commencement of the trial is yet to see the light of the day.”

Round 1: Supreme Court rejects bail, allows Sisodia to apply again in case of delays

Sisodia was arrested by the CBI on 26 February 2023 and the ED on 9 March 2023 for his alleged involvement in irregular framing and implementation of Delhi’s Liquor Policy for 2021-22. The CBI filed a chargesheet on 25 April 2023 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The ED filed a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 

Pleas for bail in both the CBI and ED arrests were rejected by the Delhi High Court (CBI 30 May 2023; ED: 3 July 2023). On 30 October 2023, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V. Bhatti issued a common order for both cases and upheld the rejection of bail. They had held that the CBI and the ED showed sufficient prima facie evidence that Sisodia could be charged with money laundering, conspiracy and other offences under the PMLA, PCA and IPC.

“However, we are also concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the appellant,” the two-judge bench had said in the same order. The bench also reiterated that the right to speedy trial, was a “facet of the right to life,” and that prolonged “detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial.” 

They had also stated that “when the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail.”

The Court had taken into account the assurances of the lawyers in the case that the trial would be concluded in six to eight months. They ended the Order stating that if there are changed circumstances, or “the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in next three months,” Sisodia may apply for bail in a fresh petition all over again. They directed the Trial Court to consider that application “without being influenced” by previous rejections of bail. 

Round 2: Supreme Court dismisses bail petition assured by the government that trial will soon begin

About three months later, on 27 January 2024, Sisodia filed a bail application for the second time before a Trial Court in Delhi. The Trial Court rejected this application on 30 April saying that there were no “changed circumstances” which warranted a fresh bail application. On 2 May, Sisodia took this bail application to the High Court. 19 days later, the High Court rejected his plea as well. 

The appeal against the High Court’s order went before a Vacation Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta on 4 June, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the bench that “the investigation would be concluded and final complaint/charge-sheet would be filed expeditiously and at any rate on or before 3rd July 2024.” He stated that the Trial Court would begin proceedings soon after. As the six to eight month period given by the Supreme Court in the first round of hearings had not ended, the Court dismissed the case.

Round 3: Arguments before the Supreme Court

On 6 July 2024, Sisodia approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi HIgh Court’s rejection of bail. Justices Gavai and Viswanathan commenced hearing Round 3 of Sisodia’s bail proceedings on 5 August. 

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appeared for the respondents and argued that Sisodia cannot approach the Court to challenge a High Court Order, when the Supreme Court had already dismissed the same case in June 2024. He stated that Sisodia had to approach the Trial Court afresh, and then appeal to the High Court if his petition did not survive. Only then could he seek remedy from the Supreme Court. He also argued that it was Sisodia who had caused the delays in the case, by filing “more than hundred applications” asking for the documents gathered in the case to be furnished to the accused. This process, typically done after charges have been framed, was done in the “precharge stage of the trial” to delay the framing of charges.

Appearing for Sisodia, Senior Advocate Dr A.M Singvi argued that the Supreme Court’s Order in the first round of hearings allowed Sisodia to seek the top court’s intervention if the case moved at a “snail’s pace.” He also argued that the investigative agencies have not been able to make out a prima facie case. Investigation, he said, was yet to complete, and three more complaints had been filed in the case, further prolonging the investigation. 

Singvi then argued that there were as many as 493 witnesses to be examined and around 69,000 pages of documents which were yet to be reviewed. Further, he argued that the ED “deliberately concealed” documents found during investigation by marking them as “un-relied documents.” Singhvi stated that these documents that the ED claims to have not relied on may exonerate Sisodia. Countering Raju’s claim that over a hundred applications for documents had been filed, Singhvi put on record that “only 14 applications in ED case and 13 applications in CBI case” were filed. 

Round 3: Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Sisodia

On whether Sisodia could approach the top court at this stage, the bench held that the Supreme Court’s Order in the first round of hearings was deeply “concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the appellant.” They noted that the three months given by the Court in Round 1 of hearings went in waiting for the Trial Court’s decision alone. By the time the High Court had heard and dismissed the case, six months had lapsed. As there clearly were inordinate delays in hearing the case, making Sisodia approach the Trial Court and climb his way to the top court all over again “would be making him play a game of “Snake and Ladder”.” Justices Gavai and Viswanathan wrote that “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.” 

Next, on the question of whether Sisodia was entitled to bail, the Court relied on its Order from the first round of hearings. There, it had said that the right to bail in cases of delay and incarceration for a long period of time should be considered by a court when considering bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 45 of the PMLA. Based on this, the Bench held that both the Trial Court and the High Court were “in ignorance of the observations” of the Supreme Court’s view on the right to speedy disposal of cases and against prolonged incarceration. 

Further, the Bench noted that Raju’s claim of hundreds of applications being filed by the petitioner was not substantiated by the documents on record. The Trial Court in Round 3 had rejected the bail petition stating that Sisodia had caused delays through “frivolous” applications filed during the investigation. The Supreme Court noted in its Order that they asked Raju to show instances where these applications had been rejected by the Trial Court for being “frivolous.” “not a single order could be pointed out,” they said. 

On whether Sisodia himself was the cause of delay, the Supreme Court stated that “in order to avail the right to fair trial, the accused cannot be denied the right to have inspection of the documents including the “un-relied upon documents”. They added that considering “the huge magnitude of the documents” in the case, Sisodia’s legal team had to be given reasonable time for review. 

The bench referred to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v State of Maharashtra (2024), where the Court had noted that “over a period of time, 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.” In the Judgement today, the bench stated that “from our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail.” “It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”,” it said. 

Directions

The Court gave the following directions in the judgement:

1. The Delhi High Court and Trial Court’s orders rejecting bail are set aside.
2. On furnishing of bail bonds for ₹10,00,000/- with two sureties, Sisodia is released on bail.
3. Sisodia shall surrender his passport with the Special Court.
4. He must report to the Investigating Officer every Monday and Thursday between 10 and 11am.
5. He must not make any attempt to influence a witness or tamper with evidence.