The Supreme Court on August 9 granted bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in cases related to the Delhi excise policy case.
The court granted regular bail to Sisodia in cases probed by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the now-scrapped excise policy. The Aam Aadmi Party leader will walk out of jail after 17 months.
During the court hearing, the Supreme Court referred to the recent precedents that held that investigating agencies cannot oppose bail citing the seriousness of the offence if they cannot ensure a speedy trial.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, which reserved the judgment on August 6, disagreed with the findings of the trial court and the High Court that the delay in trial was attributable to Sisodia. The top court said it would be a ‘travesty of justice’ to relegate him to the trial court for seeking bail in these cases.
Here is what the court Supreme Court bench observed, according to LiveLaw, before granting bail to Manish Sisodia:
1-We find that on account of long incarceration, running around 17 months, and trial having not been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of the right to speedy trial.
2-Article 21 applies irrespective of t nature of crime. Courts have forgotten that bail ought not to be withheld as punishment. Principle bail is the rule and jail an exception.
3-Incarceration of 18 months…trial not having been even commenced, the appellant has been deprived of the right to speedy trial...trial Court and HC ought to have given due weightage to this.
4-Keeping appellant behind bars for unlimited time will deny fundamental right. Appellant is having deep roots in society. No apprehension of fleeing. Anyway conditions can be imposed
5-A citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post. June 4 order recorded that it did not go into merits. This court noted assurance of SG that investigation would be completed and chargesheet would be filed before July 3.
6-It would be travesty of justice to relegate the appellant to trial court. Liberty reserved by this court on June 4 to revive will have to be interpreted as reviving of prayer before this court. Not inclined to entertain preliminary objection.
7- Keeping the appellant behind bars for unlimited time will deny the fundamental rights. The appellant has deep roots in society. No apprehension of fleeing. Anyway, conditions can be imposed.
8-Insofar as tampering, most evidence is documentary. Already with ED/CBI. As a result, we allow the appeals. Delhi High Court judgment is set aside. The appellant was directed to be released.
9-Appellant shall surrender thepassport. Shall report to Investigation Officer (IO) every Monday. Shall not attempt to influence witness.
10-This court had granted liberty to theappellant to revive his prayer. Now, relegating him back to trial court would be making him play a game of snakes and ladders.
