SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 758

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Manish Sisodia – Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Bail Appln. 1557 of 2024
With
Manish Sisodia – Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Bail Appln. 1559 of 2024
Decided On : 21-05-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocates with Mr. Vivek Jain, Mohd. Irshad, Mr. Rajat Bharadwaj, Mr. Karan Sharma, Mr. Rishkesh Kumar, Mr. Rajat Jain, Mr. Sadiq Noor, Mr. Mohit Siwach, Mr. Kaustubh Khanna, Mr. Shailesh Chauhan, Mr. Harsh Gautam, Mr. Kunal Raj & Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent ED:Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED & Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Ms. Abhipriya Rai, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Hithash Raja & Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent CBI: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP for CBI with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Adv. with I.O. SP Rajiv Kumar.

The court ruled that even significant trial delays do not automatically warrant bail in economic offences, especially when credible evidence suggests potential witness tampering and evidence destruction by the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 477A - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 and 45 - Applications for bail in cases involving economic offences - The applicant's bail applications were denied on the grounds of grave allegations of a conspiracy involving substantial kickbacks and financial misconduct related to the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, while assertions were made about the delay in trial being caused by the applicant's numerous applications, which were not categorized as frivolous by the Court. (Paras 42, 51, 161, 179)

(B) Bail - Grant of bail - The special nature of economic offences necessitates strict scrutiny; the triple test of flight risk, evidence tampering, and witness influencing applies; the applicant failed to satisfy these conditions. (Paras 144, 150, 161)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a former minister, was implicated in a conspiracy involving a fraudulent formulation of a liquor policy which benefitted certain businesses through significant kickbacks, facing serious allegations of corruption and money laundering, and was in judicial custody for over fourteen months. (Para 1, 10, 162)

Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the prosecution had set forth a prima facie case, indicating robust evidence against the applicant, meriting continued detention. Despite the applicant claiming entitlement to bail due to delay, the foundational nature of the accusations weighed heavily against him, indicating a well-grounded apprehension of witness influence and evidence tampering. (Paras 149, 150, 162)

Issues: The principal issues included whether the applicant was entitled to bail due to trial delays and if any delay was attributable to him. (Paras 41, 42)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed that economic offences warrant a distinct approach concerning bail, highlighting that prolonged incarceration does not suffice as a standalone ground for bail if substantial evidence exists against the accused. Further, the applicant's significant political influence posed a risk of evidence tampering and witness intimidation should he be released. (Paras 144, 161)

Result: Bail applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case context and investigation details. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. summary of allegations and responses from the applicant. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)
3. legislative framework concerning delay in trial and its relevance. (Para 42 , 45 , 51)
4. the court emphasizes anti-corruption measures and public integrity. (Para 159 , 162)

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

INTRODUCTION

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT SH. MANISH SISODIA 10

Submissions qua the case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation

Submissions qua the case filed by Directorate of Enforcement

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Submissions on behalf of Directorate of Enforcement

Submissions on behalf Central Bureau of Investigation

ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT

DIRECTIONS OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2023: WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO BAIL ON SOLE GROUND OF DELAY IN TRIAL?

WHETHER THERE IS DELAY IN TRIAL, FOR THE REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO APPLICANT SH. MANISH SISODIA?

Applications preferred by the Applicant in CBI case before the Ld.

Trial Court

Applications preferred by the Applicant in E.D. case before the Ld. Trial Court

Whether the applicant or other accused persons can be held responsible for delay in initiation of trial due to their act of filing different applications before the learned Trial Court?

Applications unrelated to Section 207 /208 of Cr.P.C.

Different ‘Players’ and ‘Factors’ Affecting the Speed of Trial

Observations Regarding All Accused Persons Acting in ‘Concert’ With Each Other To Delay Trial: Whether Reasonable and Justifiable?

Delay in commencement of trial cannot be attributed to the ED or CBI or Ld. Trial Court

Have the proceedings before the learned Trial Court proceeded at Snail’s pace?

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF REGULAR BAIL UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. & IN CASES INVOLVING ECONOMIC OFFENCES

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF BAIL UNDER PMLA

THE CASE OF CBI AND E.D. & THE ROLE OF APPLICANT SH. MANISH SISODIA

Timeline of Events reflecting the Role of Applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia

Association of the Applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia with co-accused Sh. Vijay Nair

Orchestration of Pre-Decided Emails by Sh. Manish Sisodia and Creation of Fake Public Opinion

Change of Draft Cabinet Note by Sh. Manish Sisodia to Hide Opinion of Legal Experts

No Reasons to Justify Increase in Wholesale Profit Margin from 5% to 12%

Role of Applicant in Ensuring Allotment of L-1 License to M/s Indo Spirits

Creation of Uneven Level Playing Field

Destruction of Electronic Evidence by Sh. Manish Sisodia

Role of Applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia in Commission of Offence of Money Laundering under Section 3 of PMLA

To Sum Up: The Modus Operandi

WHETHER CASE FOR GRANT OF BAIL IS MADE OUT, ON MERITS?

WHETHER THE APPLICANT CAN BE GRANTED BAIL ON SOLE GROUND OF DELAY IN TRIAL, EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO GRANT OF BAIL ON MERITS?

CONCLUSION

Manufacturing Fake Public Opinion: Another Form of Corruption

Judicial Resolve Against Corruption while dealing with applications for bail when investigation is pending

The Decision

INTRODUCTION

1. This judgment shall govern disposal of BAIL APPLN. 1557/2024 filed by the applicant in case registered against him by Directorate of Enforcement (‘E.D.’) and BAIL APPLN. 1559/2024 filed by the applicant in case registered against him by Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’), since the same arise out of similar facts, the latter being the predicate offence and the former being a case registered on the basis of the predicate offence. The facts and the allegations to a large extent are therefore identical.

2. Since both bail applications are being decided by one common order, the brevity


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top