Supreme Court Allows Manish Sisodia To Revive Bail Plea After Final Chargesheet/Complaint Is Filed By ED/CBI In Four Weeks

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (June 04) disposed of the bail plea of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia regarding the money laundering and corruption cases connected to the liquor policy case. This was after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the final chargesheet in the matter would be filed in three weeks. However, the Court granted time till July 03, 2024 for filing of the chargesheet. At the same time, it gave Sisodia liberty to raise his plea after filing of the chargesheet. The vacation Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a Special Leave Petition against the Delhi High Court order dated May 21, rejecting the second bail plea moved by Sisodia. Both Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) had registered cases against the Aam Aadmi Party leader.Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted at the outset that Sisodia has been in custody for the last fifteen months. The Apex Court, while dismissing his bail plea, had last year said that he could file a fresh bail plea before the trial court if the trial proceeds at a snail's pace."29. In view of the assurance given at the Bar on behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next six to eight months, we give liberty to the appellant – Manish Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail's pace in next three months."In this context, Singhvi apprised that the investigation is ongoing and the sixth and seventh supplementary chargesheets were filed two weeks ago. Further, he argued that the ED had cited 162 witnesses and filed over 5000 pages. Apart from this, CBI cited 294 witnesses and filed documents of 31000 pages.Countering the prosecution's stance that the delay is by Sisodia, Singhvi assertively said that most of the applications filed by him, regarding supply of documents, were allowed. Besides, these applications were filed as per the statutory rights available to him. When the Court asked if a joint trial is taking place in the matter, Singhvi replied in the negative. He also said that it is the ED and CBI who are delaying the trial and have concealed the documents exculpating Sisodia. He went on to submit that though the CBI submitted the chargesheet a year ago, it failed to file the underlying documents. Citing the Trial Court judgment and the impugned judgment of the High Court, Singhvi said that bail was rejected on the basis that there was no delay in “pre-trial proceedings”. He averred that this was ultra vires of the Supreme Court's judgment.Singhvi vehemently argued that the Trial Court and the High Court could not have gone behind the Supreme Court's judgment, but they did. A second ground of challenge was that the High Court dismissed the bail, opining on merits, which it ought not to have done. Arguing that there was a grave delay in the trial and the matter required consideration, the senior counsel requested the Court to issue notice. However, the Court was not inclined to issue notice without listening to ED's objections. Therefore, Justice Kumar asked SG Tushar Mehta (appearing for respondent-authorities) the following questions:"Two things, without going into the merits, you will have to refer to para 29 of this Court's order. Secondly, undisputedly, prima facie, the submissions made by Dr Singhvi show that there is no delay attributable to the petitioner. So, in those circumstances, the succor given by this court in paragraph 29, would it not inure to the benefit of the petitioner?Thirdly, when will the trial commence and who are the primary witnesses?"Responding to the Court queries, Mehta submitted that as per Para 29 (mentioned above for ready reference), any application filed for bail was to be considered by the trial court on merits without being influenced by the Supreme Court's order. On protraction of trial, he said that the "CM and the convener of the party" (referring to Arvind Kejriwal) did not appear for six months.Further, the SG urged that Sisodia raised the issue of non-supply of documents at belated stage. He argued that documents were supplied but Sisodia asked to supply the same again. To support this, he referred to applications filed for the supply of documents that were dismissed by the Trial Court on the same ground. "You are not permitting even the charge to frame under Section 207 of the CrPC...The finding is that we tried our best to comply with all the court orders. Since the accused persons wanted digital copies , then hard copies, then legible copies, then a list of unrelied documents, then inspection of all documents and voluminous records, more supplementary prosecution complaints have also been filed now..." Mehta said. At this stage, the Court enquired that if trial court is able to frame the charges in a time-bound manner, how long it would take for the...

Supreme Court Allows Manish Sisodia To Revive Bail Plea After Final Chargesheet/Complaint Is Filed By ED/CBI In Four Weeks

Debby Jain & Gyanvi Khanna

Tags