On August 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case. This decision marks a significant turn in the high-profile legal battle involving Sisodia, who has been in custody since February 26, 2023.
Details of the Supreme Court's Decision
The Bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, issued the order after a detailed examination of Sisodia’s prolonged incarceration. The Court quashed the Delhi High Court's previous decision and granted bail in both cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
In its ruling, the Court emphasized that the extended delay in Sisodia’s trial had infringed upon his right to a speedy trial, a fundamental liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court noted:
“Sisodia has been deprived of the right to a speedy trial. Right to speedy trial is a sacrosanct right. Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.”
The Bench highlighted that there was no realistic prospect of the trial being concluded within a reasonable timeframe and asserted that continued detention would violate Sisodia’s constitutional rights. The Court also pointed out that Sisodia’s deep ties to society and the nature of the case, which involves documentation rather than potential tampering, mitigated concerns of flight risk or evidence tampering.
Bail Conditions and Court Observations
The Court's order stipulates that Sisodia must furnish ₹2 lakh as bail bonds, surrender his passport, and report to the police station as part of his bail conditions. Additionally, the Court underscored the need for lower courts to acknowledge the principle of "bail not jail" and to avoid routinely denying bail in criminal cases.
The Bench noted that High Courts and trial courts often err on the side of caution, frequently denying bail rather than recognizing it as the default position. The Court emphasized that the triple test for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not applicable in this instance due to the focus on trial delay rather than the merits of the charges.
Background and Arguments
The case centers on allegations that Delhi government officials manipulated the excise policy to benefit certain liquor sellers, with the proceeds allegedly used to fund the AAP's electoral campaign in Goa. Sisodia has faced multiple rejections of his bail applications, with previous pleas denied both by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Sisodia's legal team argued that the evidence against him was insufficient and that he had already served a significant portion of the potential sentence. They contested the ED’s claims that Sisodia’s applications had delayed the trial, asserting that all applications were either allowed by the trial court or were procedural necessities.
On the other hand, the ED contended that Sisodia's bail might lead to evidence tampering and witness influence, arguing that the delay was attributable to Sisodia’s actions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision represents a crucial moment in the Delhi Excise Policy case, reflecting a broader judicial stance on the right to a speedy trial and the principles guiding bail. Sisodia’s release on bail is contingent upon compliance with specific conditions, but it marks a pivotal development in a case that continues to capture national attention.
The ruling not only affects Sisodia but also sets a precedent for how courts handle prolonged delays in criminal trials, reinforcing the importance of timely justice.
TAGS: Supreme Court Manish Sisodia Aam Aadmi Party Delhi Excise Policy Case CBI Enforcement Directorate Bail Right to Speedy Trial
