New Delhi: The Supreme Court granted bail to former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) communication in-charge Vijay Nair in a money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi excise scam.
Stating that liberty is “sacrosanct”, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N Bhatti said Monday that Nair was in jail for the last 23 months in a money-laundering case where the maximum punishment was seven years.
Nair is the fourth person to be granted bail in the Delhi excise policy case after former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K.Kavitha, and AAP leader Sanjay Singh.
ThePrint looks at other key accused in the case and what happened in their cases.
Manish Sisodia
On 20 July, 2022, Lieutenant Governor (L-G) V.K.Saxena recommended a probe into alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the Delhi excise policy for 2021-22. Two days later, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) directed an inquiry following which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested Sisodia on 26 February last year while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) did the same on 9 March.
On 25 April, the CBI filed its charge sheet accusing Sisodia of offences under relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The PCA sections pertain to public servants being bribed; influencing public servants by corrupt or illegal means or personal influence; bribing a public servant and punishment for abetment of offences. Meanwhile, the charges under the IPC relate to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property; criminal conspiracy and; causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen offenders.
Arguments made
Sisodia’s first bail application was dismissed by the Supreme Court in October last year. After the final charge sheet was filed, Sisodia moved a fresh bail petition on which the court issued notice 16 July.
He had moved the top court once again in June, after the Delhi High Court declined him relief.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had assured the SC that a final charge sheet would be filed “expeditiously” and “at any rate on or before 3 July” following which the trial court could freely proceed with the trial.
Considering Mehta’s arguments, the SC disposed of Sisodia’s plea, while giving him liberty to revive his prayer afresh after the final charge sheet is filed.
Once the final charge sheet was filed, Sisodia moved a fresh bail petition that was decided on 16 July. His advocate Abhishek Singhvi contended that the SC’s 30 October, 2023 order, had allowed him to revive his bail if the trial didn’t conclude within 6-8 months and also if it proceeds at a “snail’s pace in the next three months”.
What court said
In Sisodia’s case, the Supreme Court noted that this was the third round of Sisodia seeking bail. Before this, Sisodia’s case had made two rounds before the trial court, the high court and the apex court.
On 9 August, the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V.Viswanathan allowed Sisodia’s petition challenging the 21 May order passed by the Delhi High Court. The HC had rejected his bail applications in connection with two cases filed by the ED and the CBI.
Although both cases dealt with similar facts, the CBI’s case dealt with the “predicate offence” (a crime that is a component of a more complex criminal activity) of corruption, while the ED’s case was registered on the basis of that “predicate offence”.
Observing that it was “concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration”, the two-judge bench relied on its earlier judgements to say, “even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case”.
“Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurance of the prosecution, and it is clear that the case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious,” the bench said in its 19-page order.
The apex court pointed out that the right to bail, in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for long periods, should be read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The former provision deals with the special powers of HCs or the court of session regarding bail, while the latter relates to the twin conditions to be satisfied for granting bail in PMLA cases.
Further, Section 45 of the PMLA says that courts can only grant bail if they are satisfied that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accused isn’t guilty of the offence; and isn’t likely to commit any offence while out on bail.
Also Read: In order granting bail to BRS’s Kavitha, SC lays down red line on PMLA bail exception for women
Sanjay Singh
In its case, the ED informed the court that an FIR was registered by the CBI on 17 August 2022 under Section 120B of the IPC and Section 7 of the PCA dealing with the offences of criminal conspiracy and bribing public servants, respectively.
Moreover, the FIR was registered based on a complaint made in July 2022 by the L-G upon the directions of the MHA concerning the alleged irregularities committed in framing and implementing the Delhi excise policy between 2021 and 2022.
Arguments made
Appearing for Singh, senior advocate Singhvi contended that although the AAP Rajya Sabha MP wasn’t named in the case initially, his name was added after Dinesh Arora’s statement. Arora, who was named as an accused, had become an approver later.
“Dinesh Arora was sent to judicial custody, after which he made allegations for the first time. Apart from this, there are unrelied documents, another travesty of justice,” Singhvi submitted.
On behalf of the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V.Raju told the apex court that the agency had no objections to Singh being released on bail. “I am making the statement without going into the merits of the case and keeping all the rights and contentions open,” he said.
What court said
The top court took note of ASG Raju’s statement that ED had no objections to Singh’s release after its query about why he should be kept in jail beyond six months when there wasn’t any concrete evidence.
“In the morning session, ASG S.V. Raju was asked to obtain instructions. He states they have no objections if Sanjay Singh is released on bail in proceedings arising out of the FIR…In view of the statement made, we allow the present appeal and direct that Sanjay Singh be released on bail during pendency of trial on terms and conditions set by the trial court,” the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and P.B.Varale said.
However, the bench specified that the order could not be treated as “precedent” or be of assistance to other jailed AAP leaders.
K Kavitha
In the Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs ED case, the top court was dealing with a challenge to an order passed by the Delhi High Court on 1 July denying bail to the BRS leader under Section 45 of the PMLA.
“..As far as benefit of proviso to Section 45 is concerned, when it is the case of applicant herself that she is a well educated and accomplished woman, who has remained Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Council, etc., this Court is bound to keep in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Saumya Chaurasia,” the HC order reads.
In the Saumya Chaurasia vs ED (2024) case, a two-judge SC bench said that courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA and similar provisions in other statutes. It added that persons of tender age and women are likely to be more vulnerable and are sometimes misused by unscrupulous elements for committing crimes.
Section 45 (1) PMLA allows relaxation of the stringent twin conditions under the PMLA by allowing bail to be granted to certain categories of people like women; persons under 16 years; or those who are sick or infirm, among others.
In its 13-page-order, the Delhi High Court had said that Kavitha cannot be equated to a vulnerable woman, “who may have been misused to commit an offence, which is the class of women for whom the proviso to Section 45 of PMLA has been incorporated.”
What court said
On 27 August, a bench of Justices Gavai and K.V.Viswanath ruled that subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10 lakh, the appellant will be released. It also said that the HC had “totally misdirected herself (Kavitha) while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45 (1) of the PMLA”.
Recalling the top court’s landmark ruling in an earlier case, the bench noted that saying that “persons of tender age and women who are more likely to be vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements” is vastly different from saying that the proviso to Section 45 (1) applies only to vulnerable women.
The court also clarified that nowhere does the law or the SC ruling say that simply because a woman is highly educated or an MP, she won’t be entitled to the benefit deriving from Section 45 (1).
(Edited by Tony Rai)