Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 645

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Manish Sisodia – Appellant
VERSUS
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024] With Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 8772 of 2024]
Decided On : 09-08-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Mr. Mohd. Irshad, Adv. Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Jain, Adv. Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv. Ms. Arveen, Adv. Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Khanna, Adv. Mr. Kautubh Khanna, Adv. Mr. Rishikesh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Abhipriya,Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami,Adv. Mr. Hitarth Raja,Adv. Mr. Harsh Paul Singh,Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sarkar,Adv. Mr. Animesh Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Sathvik Reddy,Adv. Mr. Vivek Gaurav,Adv. Suradhish Vats,Adv. Mr. Kshitiz Agarwal,Adv. Ms Shweta Desai,Adv. Ms. Nidhi Saini,Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail Application – In case of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period and depending on nature of allegations, right to bail will have to be read into Section 45 of PMLA and Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(2) Right to speedy trial and right to liberty are sacrosanct rights – Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

Headnote:
(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail Application – Delhi Liquor scam – Appellant is former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi – In a matter pertaining to life and liberty of a citizen which is one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by Constitution, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post – It will be a travesty of justice to construe that carefully couched order preserving right of appellant to revive his prayer for grant of special leave against High Court order, to mean that he should be relegated all the way down to trial court – Liberty reserved by this Court vide its second order, to revive request of appellant will have to be construed as a liberty given by this Court to revive his prayer afresh after filing of final complaint/charge-sheet – In case of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period and depending on nature of allegations, right to bail will have to be read into Section 45 of PMLA and Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Paras 32, 33, 35, 37 and 44)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Bail Application – Delhi Liquor scam – Appellant is former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi – Far from trial being concluded within a period of 6-8 months, it is even yet to commence – No error in judgments and orders of Special Judge as well as High Court in considering merits of matter – Finding of trial judge that it is appellant who is responsible for delaying trial is not supported by record – In order to avail right to fair trial, accused cannot be denied right to have inspection of documents including the “un-relied upon documents” – On account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and trial even not having been commenced, appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial – Right to speedy trial and right to liberty are sacrosanct rights – Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment – Trial courts and High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail – Principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach – It is high time that trial courts and High Courts should recognize principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception” – There is not even remotest possibility of trial being concluded in near future – Appellant is having deep roots in society – There is no possibility of him fleeing away from country – Bail granted against stern conditions. (Paras 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57 and 58)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge judgment and order dated 21st May 2024 passed by Single Judge of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024, thereby rejecting the said applications filed by the present appellant for grant of bail. After investigation, CBI filed charge-sheet on 25th April 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 420, 201 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon completion of investigation, ED filed a complaint under Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on 4th May 2023.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order dated 21st May 2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024 is quashed and set aside; Appellant is directed to be released on bail in connection with ED Case No. HIU-II/14/2022 registered against the appellant by the ED and FIR No. RC0032022A0053 of 2022 registered against appellant by the CBI on furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount; Appellant shall surrender his passport with Special Court; Appellant shall report to the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10-11 AM; Appellant shall not make any attempt either to influence witnesses or to tamper with evidence.
Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:

Case Details: The Supreme Court of India allowed the bail appeals of Manish Sisodia (former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024, arising out of the Delhi Liquor scam investigations by the CBI and ED (!) (!) (!) .
Preliminary Objection on Maintainability: The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that the appellant could not file a second set of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) after a previous liberty was granted to approach the trial court, stating that relegating the appellant to lower courts would be a "travesty of justice" and make them "run from pillar to post" (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Right to Speedy Trial: The Court emphasized that the right to speedy trial and liberty are "sacrosanct rights" under Article 21 of the Constitution and that bail should not be withheld as a punishment (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Application of PMLA Section 45: The Court held that in cases involving delay coupled with long incarceration, the right to bail must be read into Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., overriding the strict "triple test" if the trial is not progressing (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Delay in Trial: The Court found that the trial had not commenced despite a 17-month period of incarceration, and the prosecution's assurance to conclude investigation by July 3, 2024, made the trial impossible within the earlier 6-8 month timeline (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Role of Accused in Delay: The Court rejected the prosecution's claim that the appellant caused delays through frequent applications under Section 207 Cr.P.C., noting that many applications were allowed and that the volume of documents (69,000 pages) required reasonable time for inspection (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Voluminous Evidence: The case involves 493 witnesses and approximately 69,000 pages of documents, making the conclusion of the trial in the near future impossible (!) (!) .
Conditions for Bail: Bail was granted subject to strict conditions, including surrendering the passport, reporting to the Investigating Officer twice a week, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted. Appeals heard on merits.

2. The present appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 21st May 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024, thereby rejecting the said applications filed by the present appellant for grant of bail. The aforesaid two applications were filed seeking bail in connection with ED Case No. HIU-II/14/2022 registered against the appellant by the Directorate of Enforcement (for short, ‘ED’) and First Information Report (FIR) No. RC0032022A0053 of 2022 registered against the appellant by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, ‘CBI’).

3. FIR No. RC0032022A0053 of 2022 came to be registered by the CBI on 17th August 2022, and ED Case No. HIU-II/14/2022 came to be registered by the ED on 22nd August 2022.

4. Since both the cases 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, both these appeals are heard and decided together.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

5. The present case travelled two rounds before the trial court, the High Court and this Court. This is now the third round before this Court wherein the appellant is seeking bail in connection with the aforesaid two cases.

6. On the basis of a letter dated 20th July 2022 addressed by Shri 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 dated 22nd July 2022. On 26th February 2023, the appellant came to be arrested by the CBI. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested by the ED on 9th March 2023.

7. After investigation, CBI filed charge-sheet on 25th April 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PC Act’) read with Sections 420, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). Upon completion of investigation, the ED filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘PMLA’) on 4th May 2023.

8. The first application for regular bail of the appellant in CBI matter came to be rejected by the High Court on 30th May 2023. Subsequently, the first application for regular bail of the appellant in ED matter came to be rejected by the High Court on 3rd July 2023. This Court, vide common order dated 30th October 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the first order of this Court”) rejected the regular bail applications of the appellant in the CBI matter and the ED matter, with certain observations which we will refer to in the subsequent paragraphs.

9. Subsequently, in view of the liberty granted by this Court, the appellant filed second bail application before the trial court on 27th January 2024. In the said proceedings, the appellant was granted interim protection. However, by an order dated 30th April 2024, the trial court rejected the said bail application on the ground that there was no change in the circumstances.

10. The appellant thereafter filed second bail application before the High Court on 2nd May 2024. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 21st May 2024, the learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected the said bail application also.

11. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant had approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 7795 and 7799 of 2024.

12. The matter was heard on 4th June 2024. This Court, in the said order (hereinafter referred to as “the second order of this Court”) recorded the submissions of the learned Solicitor General that the investigation would be concluded and final complaint/charge-sheet would be filed expeditiously and at any rate on or before 3rd July 2024 and immediately thereafter, the trial court would be free to proceed with the trial. This Court recorde