Menu

Manish Sisodia V/S.  Directorate Of Enforcement

Case Comment, Publications

(Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8781 & 8772 of 2024)

Facts:

  • There have already been two rounds of proceedings in this case before the Trial Court, High Court, and Supreme Court. The appellant has now filed a third set of bail requests in relation to the case, which is based on claims of irregularities in the formulation and execution of Delhi’s Excise Policy for 2021–2022 which were made in a letter dated 20th July 2022 addressed by Shri Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, which eventually led to an inquiry ordered by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 22nd July 2022. 
  • Following this, an FIR was registered by the CBI on 17th August 2022 and later the CBI arrested the appellant on 26th February 2023, Subsequently the appellant was then arrested by the ED on 9th March 2023. 
  • After conducting necessary investigation, CBI filed a charge sheet on 25th April 2023 for offences under the Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 420, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Later after completing the investigation required, ED filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on 4th May 2023.
  • The appellants first regular bail in CBI matter was 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. However, both the applications in CBI matter and ED matter were rejected by the Court on 30th October,2023.
  • Subsequently, the appellant filed second bail application before the trial court on 27th January 2024 and the High Court on 2nd May 2024, both were rejected on 30th April 2024 and 21st May 2024 respectively. 
  • The appellant then approached the Supreme Court with Special Leaves Petition (Criminal) Nos. 7795 and 7799 of 2024, which were then heard on 4th June 2024.
  • The Court observed that the appellant could renew his request for bail after the filing of the final complaint/charge-sheet. Following the submission of the final charge sheet, the appellant filed fresh appeals in the Supreme Court, leading to the present case.

Issue:

  1. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite the gravity of charges under the Prevention of Money and Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
  2. Does the appellants prolonged incarceration without trial violates his fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 
  3. Whether the prosecution has delayed the trial and thereby infringed upon the appellants right to liberty.
  4. Whether the appellants conduct contributed to the delay in the trial process, thus disqualifying him from bail.

Contentions 

Respondent:

  • Shri Raju, representing the ED and CBI raised a preliminary objection that the appellant could not be permitted to file a second set of SLPs to challenge the same High Court Order when the earlier SPLs had already been disposed of. 
  • The liberty granted by the Supreme Court on June 4,2024 only allowed the appellant to apply afresh before ethe trial court. After exhausting remedies at the trial court and High Court, appellant could approach the Supreme Court, Hence, he argued that the appellant should first approach the trial court. The respondent relied on the case of Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, to substantiate his objection to filling of second set of SLPs.
  • The first order dated October 30,2023, was rejected by the court acter assessing the merits of the case. This the current appeal should be rejected as the respondents had established a prima facie case against the appellant.
  • Further it was contended that the delay in trial was due to the appellants which had filed numerous applications under Section 207 of CrPc to delay the framing of charges and the trial proceedings. 
  • Under Section 45 of the PMLA, an accused could not be released on bail unless two conditions were met, one of which required the court to believe that the accused was not guilty of the offense. Further, the conditions for bail were not met especially since the Supreme Court has refused bail earlier.
  • The appellant being a former Deputy Minister of Delhi, was an influential figure, and his release on bail could lead to him tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Appellants:

  • It was argued that the Supreme Courts first order explicitly gave liberty to the appellant to apply for bail if the trial did not conclude within 6-8 months, which was indeed not concluded with the time frame hence the appellant is entitled to apply for a fresh bail.
  • The trial had been delayed significantly, with three supplementary complaints being filed by the ED in May and June 2024. Additionally, as of July 2024, there were 40 accused persons and over 69,000 pages of documents that needed to be examined. The complexity of the case with 493 witnesses in total further contributed to the delay. Hence violating the right of the appellant to speedy trial.
  • He contended that the prosecution had deliberately delayed proceedings by withholding key documents as “un-relied upon documents” and that the appellant had filed applications under Section 207 of CrPC to ensure access to these documents, which was essential for a fair trial.
  • The counsel also pointed out that the courts had failed to properly assess the prolonged period of incarceration without trial.

Rationale:

  • The Supreme Court, while considering the second set of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), had to first address a preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of these petitions. The Court had explicitly allowed in previous orders that the appellant has the right to renew his bail application once the final charge-sheet was filed. Since the charge-sheet had indeed been filed, the Supreme Court rejected the respondents’ objection and confirmed that the appellant had the right to revive his appeal for bail.
  • In context to the issues regarding appellant’s prolonged pre-trial incarceration. The Court expressed its concern that, despite the prosecution’s assurance during earlier hearings that the trial would conclude within 6-8 months, no significant progress had been made, and the trial had not even commenced. Hence, the Court emphasized in this case that the delay in the trial was not attributable to the appellant, and thus, continuing his incarceration violated the principles enshrined in Article 21
  • The Supreme Court also referred to Section 436A of the Cr.P.C., which addresses the issue of prolonged pre-trial detention. According to this provision, if an accused has been in detention for more than half the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense they are charged with, they should be released on bail unless there are exceptional circumstances. Given the considerable time the appellant had already spent in custody, the Supreme Court found that his continued detention was not warranted, especially when the trial’s delay was caused by the prosecution.
  • The prosecution argued that the appellant’s frequent filing of applications caused delays in the trial process. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument, observing that the appellant’s applications were legitimate and necessary to ensure a fair trial. These applications were primarily requests for access to critical documents, and they were allowed by the trial court. Therefore, it was clear that the appellant was not responsible for delaying the trial, and his continued detention could not be justified on this basis

Defects of Law:

  • Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, often leading to prolonged pre-trial detention. The Court’s decision reflects concerns about these provisions, especially when they hinder the right to liberty and a fair trial.
  • Despite the Supreme Court’s earlier directive to expedite the trial within 6-8 months, the investigative and prosecutorial agencies failed to ensure the timely progression of the case. This systemic delay poses a significant challenge, as it undermines the appellant’s right to a speedy trial.
  • The case also highlights the absence of clear guidelines for managing trials involving economic offenses, which typically involve voluminous documentation and numerous witnesses poses challenges for ensuring the accused’s right to a fair and speedy trial.

Inference:

  •  The Supreme Court ultimately held that the appellant’s continued incarceration was unjustified due to the lack of progress in the trial. The Court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, Even in cases involving serious allegations of economic offenses and corruption, the right to liberty and a speedy trial cannot be compromised
  • The Court’s ruling also highlights the need for judicial discretion in interpreting Section 45 of the PMLA in a manner that balances the state’s interest in prosecuting economic offenses with the constitutional mandate to protect personal liberty. This case highlights the critical balance between ensuring justice in high-profile corruption cases and upholding constitutional rights, particularly the right to liberty under Article 21
  • Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant’s appeals and granted him bail, subject to conditions such as surrendering his passport and reporting regularly to the authorities. 

Riya Choudhary