2023 Supreme(SC) 1094

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJIV KHANNA, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Manish Sisodia – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3352 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 8167, 8188 of 2023
Decided On : 30-10-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail application – For the purpose of considering application for bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned and evidence need not be weighed meticulously, tentative finding should be recorded on the basis of broad probabilities.
(2) Even if allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case – Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within broad scope of Article 21 of Constitution.
(3) When trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to accused, court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise power to grant bail – This would be truer where trial would take years.

Headnote:

(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – Liquor scam – For the purpose of considering application for bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned and evidence need not be weighed meticulously, tentative finding should be recorded on the basis of broad probabilities – Order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases where applicant has been granted or denied bail – Offence of conspiracy and abetment, in terms of Sections 120/120B and Sections 107/108 of IPC, are not applicable to offences under PML Act. (Paras 8, 15 and 18)

(B) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 3, 4 and 45 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 436A – Bail application – Liquor scam – Specific allegation on involvement of appellant-Manish Sisodia, direct or indirect, in transfer of Rs. 45,00,00,000 to AAP for Goa elections is missing – However, appellant had deliberately destroyed two mobile phones so as to prevent any investigation – Whether or not allegation as to deliberate destruction of mobile phones is correct would be decided post recording of evidence, but this would not be a weighty factor for deciding question of bail, given period of detention undergone by appellant – Charge-sheet under PC Act includes offences for unlawful gains to a private person at expense of the public exchequer – Existing excise policy was allegedly changed to facilitate and get kickbacks and bribes from wholesale distributors by enhancing their commission/fee from 5% under old policy to 12% under new policy – Illegal income would partly be recycled and returned in form of bribes – Even if allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case – Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within broad scope of Article 21 of Constitution – Section 436A should not be construed as a mandate that accused should not be granted bail under PML Act till he has suffered incarceration for specified period. (Paras 15, 20, 22, 24 and 26)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 – Bail application – Liquor scam – Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial – If trial gets protracted despite assurances of prosecution and it is clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, prayer for bail may be meritorious – While prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnapping for ransom, mass violence, etc. – Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded – Allegations have to be established and proven – Right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on nature of allegations, should be read into Section 439 of Code and Section 45 of PML Act – Constitutional mandate is higher law and it is basic right of person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy trial – When trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to accused, court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise power to grant bail – This would be truer where trial would take years – Appellant given liberty to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in next three months – Appellant may also file application for interim bail in case of ill-health and medical emergency due to illness of his wife – Such application would be also examined on its own merits. (Paras 28 and 29)

Facts of the case:

Appellant-Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, seeks bail in the prosecutions arising from RC registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Enforcement Case Information Report filed by Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Findings of Court:

Observations made in this judgment, either way, are only for disposal of the present appeals, and these would not influence trial court on merits of case, which would proceed in accordance with law, and decided on the basis of evidence led. All disputed factual and legal issues are left open.

Result : Appeals dismissed.