New Delhi: There isn’t the “remotest possibility” that Manish Sisodia’s trial in the liquor policy case will conclude anytime soon, the Supreme Court observed Friday .
To continue keeping the former Delhi deputy chief minister in custody — where he had already remained for “17 long months” — therefore, would be a grave violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty, the top court said while granting the leader bail.
The court lambasted the undue delay in commencing the trial, and brushed aside the contention of the investigative agencies — the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) — that Sisodia was himself responsible for the delay because of the multiple “frivolous applications” he had filed. These, the central agencies said, included the ones seeking copies of documents annexed with the final reports in two separate cases lodged by them.
A division bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan, however, said the probe agencies had failed to establish that Sisodia filed any “frivolous” application. The judges rejected that argument as well as similar observations made by the trial court and the Delhi High Court that Sisodia had slowed the trial.
The bench took note of the voluminous documents filed by the CBI and the ED in their respective chargesheets, and said the AAP leader could not be denied these papers, including the ones on which the agencies were not relying. This, it held, would take “substantial time”.
This could not be a reason to keep Sisodia behind bars, the bench added, while reiterating the well-established bail jurisprudence that “bail cannot be denied as a matter of punishment”.
The judgment also reminded trial courts and high court that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” and that the two fora should not “play safe” in matters of bail.
The ED and CBI’s request to ask Sisodia to apply afresh before the trial court was also rejected. The bench noted that Sisodia was given the liberty to revive his plea after the chargesheet was filed, which had already been done.
“Now, relegating Sisodia to trial court and then the HC would be like playing a game of snake and ladder,” the bench observed.
While stipulating bail conditions for Sisodia, the judges declined to entertain an oral request made by the investigating agencies to impose a similar restriction as was put on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal — that Sisodia would not visit the CM’s office.
This now means if Sisodia is re-inducted as a minister in the Delhi government, he can attend office and take decisions.
The bail conditions also include a bail bond of Rs 10 lakh and two sureties of the same amount, as well as visiting the offices of the CBI and the ED twice a week. The two days fixed are Monday and Thursday.
Sisodia successful in 2nd attempt in SC
Sisodia had moved the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court rejected his second bail plea on 21 May. In doing so, the high court noted that Sisodia’s case depicted a grave misuse of power and breach of trust.
The high court further said 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”. It upheld the trial court’s prima facie finding on Sisodia’s alleged involvement in the case.
The trial court and high court decisions came on Sisodia’s second attempt to get bail. In October last, the top court dismissed his first set of bail pleas (in the CBI and ED cases). But it had allowed him to apply fresh if there was no progress in the trial in three months. Subsequently, Sisodia moved the trial court and, on rejection, appealed in the HC.
Thereafter, Sisodia appproached the SC, that on 4 June had disposed of his bail plea against the May judgment of the high court after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured it that the final chargesheet/prosecution complaint in the liquor policy case would be filed on or before 3 July.
But the SC had granted him liberty to revive his plea for bail after the final complaint or chargesheet was filed.
On Friday, the judges observed that when Sisodia knocked on the top court’s doors again in June, a period of seven months had already lapsed from its first order in October 2023.
“It will be a travesty of justice to note that he has to be relegated to trial court again. Procedures cannot be made a mistress of justice. In our view, the liberty reserved will have to be construed as liberty to revive the petition after filing of chargesheet,” the bench said, while not entertaining the ED and CBI’s preliminary objection to Sisodia’s bail plea.
The bench went on to examine the argument over the delay in the trial, while commenting that neither the high court nor the trial court had “properly” considered the aspect of right to speedy trial. Both, it weighed in, dealt with the case on merits.
It faulted the courts below for opining that Sisodia had caused the delay.
“A perusal of compliance report by assistant director of ED shows that 70 to 80 days are taken to prepare one copy of the clone of the unrelied data. Though various applications were filed by several accused, he filed only 13 applications in the CBI case and 14 applications in the ED case. All applications were allowed by the trial court. Some were challenged before HC as well,” the court said, indicating the agencies too were responsible for the delay.
The bench also said that eight chargesheets were filed by the ED and the probe had to be completed by 3 July. The statement by law officers that trial would end within six months was self contradictory, the court remarked.
“If the probe was to end on July 3, then the trial could never end within six months of the first order,” the judges said.
The court further noted that Sisodia had been deprived of the right to speedy trial, which was “a sacrosanct right”. No agency, it added, can oppose bail if it cannot protect the right to speedy trial. “Article 21 applies irrespective of the crime,” the bench asserted.
Since there was “no remote possibility of completion of trial within time”, then “keeping him behind bars for the purpose of completion of trial will be nothing but a violation of Article 21”, the court said.
On the CBI and ED’s argument that Sisodia could tamper with evidence when on bail, the court remarked he has “ deep roots in society and agencies’ apprehension that he will flee is unsustainable”. Moreover, it said the case largely depended on documents that were in CBI and ED custody.
(Edited by Tikli Basu)
Also read: Delhi HC dismisses Kejriwal’s challenge to CBI arrest in liquor policy case, rejects bail plea