Bail To Manish Sisodia

 

JUSTICE Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K V Viswanathan, at the Supreme court, have, through their decision of the appeals on August 9, 2024, granted regular bail to former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi NCR, Manish Sisodia, ending his stay in jail, since last 17 months with critical observation, that over a period of time, the trial courts and High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. The apex court has added further that from its experience, it can say that the trial courts and the HCs 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. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognise the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”. These appeals challenged the judgement and order passed on May 21, 2024 by the Delhi HC Single Judge in two bail applications thereby rejecting those applications filed by Sisodia for grant of bail.

 

These applications were filed seeking bail in connection with ED Case –HIU-II/14/2022 registered against the appellant-Sisodia by Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on August 22, 2022 and FIR registered against the appellant by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on August 17, 2022. This case travelled two rounds before the trial court, the HC and the Supreme Court. Now this is the third round before this Court wherein the appellant is seeking bail in connection with these two cases. The first application for regular bail to the appellant in CBI matter came to be rejected by the HC on May 30, 2023. Subsequently, the first application for regular bail of the applicant in the ED matter came to be rejected by the HC on July 3, 2023. The Supreme Court passed common order on October 30, 2023, rejected the applications of regular bail filed by the appellant in the CBI Matter and the ED matter with certain observations. Subsequently, in view of the liberty granted by the SC, the appellant filed second bail application before the trial court on January 27, 2024. In the said proceedings, the appellant was granted interim protection. However, by an order of April 30, 2024, the trial court rejected the said application on the ground that there was no change in the circumstances. The appellant thereafter filed second application before the HC on May 2, 2024. Vide impugned judgement and order of May 21, 2024, the Single Judge at the HC rejected the said application also. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant had approached the SC by filing Special Leave Petitions (Cr.).

 

The case was heard on June 4, 2024. In the said order, the SC recorded the submissions .of the Solicitor General. Though, it was submitted on behalf of the ED that hundreds of applications have been filed for supply of “un-relied upon documents”, the record would not substantiate the said position. Though various applications have been filed by different accused persons, insofar as the present appellant is concerned, he has filed only 13 applications in the CBI matter and 14 in the ED matter. It would reveal that some of these applications for seeking permission to meet his wife or permission to file vakalatnama, to put signature on documents, seeking permission to sign a cheque etc. Though asked, the ASG failed to point out any order wherein the trial Judge found any of the applications of the appellant to be frivolous. In that view of the matter, the SC has found that the finding of the trial judge that it is the appellant who is responsible for delaying the trial is not supported by the record. The Single Judge of the HC endorses the finding of the trial court on the ground that the accused persons have taken three months’ time from October 19, 2023 to January 19, 2024 for inspection of “un-relied upon documents”, despite repeated directions from the trial court to conclude the same expeditiously.

 

In order to avail the right to fair trial, the accused cannot be denied right to have inspection of the documents running into 69,000 pages, involved in the two cases. According to the submissions of the Solicitor General, investigation was to conclude by July 3, 2024. Accordingly, the 8th chargesheet was filed on June 28, 2024 by the ED. It could thus be seen that, even according to the respondents, the investigation was to be concluded on or before July 3, 2024. Both the HC and the trial court failed to take this into consideration. In this case, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitalised documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the remotest possibility of trial being concluded in the near future. In the Supreme Court’s 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 has been observed time and again, the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.

 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals after quashing and setting aside the judgement and order of May 21, 2024 passed by the HC of Delhi in the bail applications and the SC has directed release of the appellant on bail in the two cases by the ED and the CBI, subject to the appellant furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs 10 lakhs with two sureties in like amount. He has to surrender his passport to the Special Court. He will have to report to the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 and 11 am and there should be no attempt on his part to influence the witnesses or to tamper with the prosecution evidence.