Bail Is Not To Be Withheld As Punishment; Trial Courts & High Courts Attempt To Play Safe: Supreme Court While Granting Bail To Manish Sisodia
The Supreme Court while granting bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the excise policy scam case, observed that the Trial Courts and High Courts have forgotten the principle that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment and that they attempt to play safe in such matters.
The Court was deciding appeals challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had rejected the bail applications of Sisodia.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan remarked, “The Court further observed 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. 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. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency.”
The Bench added that it is high time that the Trial Courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the appellant (Manish Sisodia) while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Suryaprakash V. Raju appeared for the respondent (Directorate of Enforcement).
Brief Facts -
The case travelled two rounds before the Trial Court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court. This was the third round that the appellant was seeking bail. Based on a letter dated July 20, 2022 addressed by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, alleging irregularities in the framing and implementation of Delhi’s Excise Policy for the year 2021-22, the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs had directed an enquiry into the said matter vide Office Memorandum and on February 26, 2023, the appellant, Manish Sisodia was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Subsequently, he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 9, 2023. Post investigation, CBI filed a chargesheet for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A, 8, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) read with Sections 420, 201, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Upon completion of investigation, the ED filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in May 2023. The first application for regular bail by Sisodia was rejected by the High Court and subsequently, the first application for regular bail in ED matter was rejected by the High Court. In view of the liberty granted by the Apex Court, he filed second bail application before the Trial Court in January 2024 and he was granted interim protection in this regard. However, in April 2024, the Trial Court rejected his bail application on the ground that there was no change in the circumstances. Thereafter, he filed a second bail application before the High Court and the same was also rejected. Being aggrieved, he filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court and the same was disposed of with liberty to revive prayer afresh after filing the final chargesheet/complaint. Hence, after this, he was before the Apex Court via appeals.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts noted, “The learned Special Judge and the learned Single Judge of the High Court have considered the applications on merits as well as on the grounds of delay and denial of right to speedy trial. We see no error in the judgments and orders of the learned Special Judge as well as the High Court in considering the merits of the matter. In view of the observations made by this Court in the first order, they were entitled to consider the same. However, the question that arises is as to whether the trial court and the High Court have correctly considered the observations made by this Court with regard to right to speedy trial and prolonged period of incarceration.”
The Court reiterated that right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 45 of the PMLA.
“In that view of the matter, we find that the finding of the learned trial judge that it is the appellant who is responsible for delaying the trial is not supported by the record. … Taking into consideration the huge magnitude of the documents involved, it cannot be stated that the accused is not entitled to take a reasonable time for inspection of the said documents. 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”, it said.
Moreover, the Court said 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.
“… the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor”, it emphasised.
The Court also took note of the fact that in the ED matter as well as the CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named and the case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitized documents. It observed that there is not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future.
“In our view, keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. As observed time and again, the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial”, it enunciated.
The Court further noted that the appellant is having deep roots in the society and there is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial.
“In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State. … Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeals, quashed the impugned judgment, and granted bail to Sisodia on furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs with two sureties of the like amount.
Cause Title- Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 595)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Vikram Chaudhary, AOR Vivek Jain, Advocates Mohd. Irshad, Rajat Bhardwaj, Amit Bhandari, Suchitra Kumbhat, Karan Sharma, Rajat Jain, Sadiq Noor, Arveen, Mohit Siwach, Kaustubh Khanna, Kautubh Khanna, and Rishikesh.
Respondent: ASG Suryaprakash V Raju, AORs Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Vivek Gurnani, Aakriti Mishra, Advocates Abhipriya, Samrat Goswami, Hitarth Raja, Harsh Paul Singh, Gaurav Sarkar, Animesh Upadhyay, Sathvik Reddy, Vivek Gaurav, Suradhish Vats, Kshitiz Agarwal, Shweta Desai, and Nidhi Saini.
