MANISH SISODIA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 2024
Case Title and Citation: MANISH SISODIA V. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2024 INSC 595 (9 August 2024)
Factual Background
The matter originated from allegations concerning irregularities in the framing and implementation of the Delhi Liquor Excise Policy for the year 2021-22. Following a complaint by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in July 2022, the CBI registered a First Information Report (FIR) on August 17, 2022, and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) registered a case under the PMLA shortly after, on August 22, 2022. The Appellant, Mr. Manish Sisodia, who was the former Deputy Chief Minister and Excise Minister of Delhi, was arrested by the CBI on February 26, 2023, and subsequently by the ED on March 9, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the Appellant favored certain wholesale distributors in exchange for bribes and kickbacks, which constituted money laundering. After the Delhi High Court rejected his initial bail pleas, the Supreme Court, in an order dated October 30, 2023, also denied bail on merits but granted the Appellant liberty to file a new application if the trial failed to conclude within six to eight months or proceeded at a “snail’s pace”. Following the rejection of his subsequent bail application by the High Court on May 21, 2024, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court for the third time seeking release.
Issue(s)
- Whether the Appellant, having been incarcerated for a prolonged period, was entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), on the ground of the denial of his fundamental right to a speedy trial.
- Whether the Supreme Court could decide the Appellant’s bail application directly, or if the Appellant was required to approach the trial court afresh after the filing of the final charge sheet, as suggested by the prosecution.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the Appellant be released on bail. The Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s order dated May 21, 2024. The release was conditioned upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, surrendering his passport, regularly reporting to the investigating officers, and refraining from attempting to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Reason for the decision
The Court based its decision primarily on the violation of the Appellant’s right to speedy trial, a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Maintainability of Appeal: The Court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the prosecution, asserting that relegating the Appellant back to the trial court would be unjust and require him to play a game of “Snake and Ladder”. The Court interpreted the liberty granted in its earlier order (October 30, 2023) as permitting the Appellant to revive his request directly before the Supreme Court after the final charge sheet was filed, especially in a matter concerning the sacrosanct right to life and liberty.
- Delay and Speedy Trial: The Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate requires that a person who is charged with an offense but not yet convicted must be ensured a speedy trial. The principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception has been often forgotten by lower courts.
- Application of PMLA Rigours: The Court reiterated that the right to bail, when coupled with a delay in trial and prolonged incarceration, should be incorporated into the analysis under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA. This allows the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA to be suitably relaxed.
- Lack of Trial Commencement: The Court noted that the trial, far from being concluded within the six to eight months assured by the prosecution in 2023, was yet to commence. The delay was not attributable to the Appellant, despite findings by the lower courts. The trial involves 493 witnesses and voluminous documents (around 69,000 pages), indicating there is no “remotest possibility” of conclusion in the near future.
- Bail Not Punishment: Keeping the Appellant incarcerated for an unlimited period (around 17 months at the time of judgment) in hope of a speedy trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty, as detention before conviction must not become “punishment without trial”.
- Mitigation of Risk: Given that the case relies heavily on seized documentary evidence, there is little chance of tampering. The Appellant has deep roots in society, negating the risk of flight. Stringent conditions imposed on the bail address the concern regarding influencing witnesses.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the Appellant’s continued prolonged incarceration, coupled with the failure of the trial to commence despite previous assurances and the massive scope of the case materials, constitutes a violation of his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Court granted conditional bail, finding that the factor of delay outweighed the constraints placed by Section 45 of the PMLA.
