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

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 7402

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANISH SISODIA – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
SLP(Crl) No.-007795 - 2024



The court's discretion to grant bail under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the consideration of factors such as the progress of the trial and change in circumstances.

Headnote:

Criminal Law - Bail Application - Sections 437, 439 CrPC

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Manish Sisodia, had challenged the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024. The petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court for grant of bail, which was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner could move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances or if the trial was protracted and proceeded at a slow pace within the next three months.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court noted that the period of 6-8 months fixed by the earlier order for the prosecution to conclude the trial had not yet elapsed. The Solicitor General assured the court that the investigation would be concluded, and the final complaint/charge sheet would be filed expeditiously, by 03.07.2024. Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the petitions with liberty to the petitioner to revive his prayer for bail afresh after the filing of the final complaint/charge sheet, to be considered on its own merits.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in the present case.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court relied on its earlier order granting the petitioner liberty to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances or if the trial was protracted and proceeded at a slow pace. Since the time period fixed for the prosecution to conclude the trial had not elapsed, the Court disposed of the petitions with liberty to the petitioner to revive his prayer for bail afresh after the filing of the final complaint/charge sheet.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the petitions with liberty to the petitioner to revive his prayer for bail afresh after the filing of the final complaint/charge sheet, to be considered on its own merits.

JUDGEMENT

IA No. 128043/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES) Date : 04-06-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA (VACATION BENCH) For Petitioner(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Mr. Mohd. Irshad, Adv. Mr. Rajat Jain, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s)Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Anam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Kanu Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. Ms. Abhipriya, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Agrimaa, Adv. Mr. Dipanshu Gaba, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Adv. Mr. A. K. Sharma, AOR contd.. Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2024.06.04 16:51:48 IST Reason:
    Signature Not Verified - 2 - UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In these two petitions, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024. Suffice to state that the petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion for grant of the relief now sought for in the present petitions and it resulted in dismissal of the same with the following observations – “29. In view of the assurance given at the Bar on behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next six to eight months, we give liberty to the appellant – Manish Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in next three months. If any application for bail is filed in the above circumstances, the same would be considered by the trail court on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail application, including the present judgment.
    Observations made above, re.:right to speedy trial, will, however, be taken into consideration. The appellant – Manish Sisodia may also file an 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.

30. Recording the aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed. However, we clarify that the observations made in this judgment, either way, are only for disposal of the present appeals, and these would not influence the trial court on the merits of the case, which would proceed in accordance with law, and decided on the basis of the evidence led.

All disputed factual and legal issues are left open.”

It is the aforesaid observations which has triggered or prompted the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court for grant of bail and same having been negatived by the trial court and High Court, the petitioner is before this Court.

Contd.. - 3 - We have heard the elaborate arguments canvassed by Dr.

A.M. Singhvi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement and Central Bureau of Investigation opposing the admission of the petitions.

Though, elaborate arguments have been made, we do not propose to go into the said arguments or dwell upon it and then record our reasons for the simple reason that Co-ordinate Bench while dismissing the appeals vide order dated 30.10.2023, as noticed hereinabove has granted liberty to the appellant, i.e., the petitioner herein to move a fresh application for bail by placing reliance on the assurance given on behalf of the prosecution that they would conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next 6-8 months and as such the liberty was extended to the petitioner herein to move a fresh application in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in next three months. It was also observed that if such an application is filed in the aforesaid circumstances, the same would be considered by the trial court on merits wit

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