MANISH SISODIA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 2023
Case Title and Citation
MANISH SISODIA vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (with connected appeal)
Citation: 2023 INSC 956
Factual Background
The appellant, Manish Sisodia, the former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, filed these appeals seeking bail in two criminal prosecutions. The first prosecution was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PoC Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The second prosecution was filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act). The appellant has been in custody since February and March 2023, respectively, in connection with these cases.
The core allegation relates to a conspiracy to frame the new excise policy to enable supersize profits for wholesale distributors in return for kickbacks and bribes. This conspiracy involved carefully drafting the new policy, deviating from expert opinions. Specifically, the policy allegedly enhanced the wholesale distributor’s commission/fee from 5% (under the old policy) to a fixed 12%. This change resulted in an alleged unlawful gain of Rs. 338 Crores (three hundred thirty eight crores only) for the wholesale distributors in about ten months, which the prosecution asserts constitutes proceeds of crime and an offence under the PoC Act.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant, Manish Sisodia, is entitled to bail in the prosecutions arising from the CBI case (under the PoC Act and IPC) and the DoE case (under the PML Act).
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, denying the grant of bail at this stage.
Reason for the decision
The Court was not inclined to grant bail because the charge regarding the unlawful gains to private persons at the expense of the public exchequer was tentatively supported by material and evidence.
- Prima Facie Case: The charge-sheet filed by the CBI alleges that a conspiracy was hatched to increase the fixed wholesale commission/fee from 5% to 12% to assure unjust enrichment of wholesale distributors. This policy change was designed to give windfall gains to select few wholesale distributors who had allegedly agreed to give kickbacks and bribes. The estimated excess profit of Rs. 338 crores earned by the wholesale distributors constitutes an offense under Section 7 of the PoC Act (relating to a public servant being bribed) and is considered proceeds of crime by the DoE.
- Statutory Limitations: The Court, while acknowledging that bail cannot be denied solely due to the gravity of an economic offense, must record a tentative finding on the basis of broad probabilities, as mandated under Section 45 of the PML Act.
- Protracted Incarceration Concern: The Court noted its concern regarding the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the appellant. The Court affirmed that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the bail appeals. However, recognizing the potential for a protracted trial (given the large volume of witnesses and documents), the Court provided the appellant, Manish Sisodia, liberty to file a fresh bail application in case circumstances change, or if the trial proceeds slowly within the next three months. The prosecution had assured the Court that the trial would be concluded within six to eight months. The Court clarified that all observations made in the judgment are tentative and should not influence the trial court on the merits of the case. The appellant was also given liberty to file an application for interim bail for ill-health or medical emergency due to his wife’s illness.
