4 Jun 2024 9:39 AM GMT
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday (June 04), disposed of the bail plea of Former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia regarding the money laundering and corruption cases connected to the liquor policy case. This was after Solicitor Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the final chargesheet would be filed in three weeks. However, the Court granted time till July 03, 2024, to file the chargesheet. At the same time, the Court also gave the liberty to raise the plea after filing of this 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 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had registered cases against the Aam Aadmi Party leader.
Senior Advocate 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 that 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 31000 pages document.
Countering the prosecution's stance that the delay is by Sisodia, Singhvi assertively said that most of the applications filed by him, regarding the supply of documents, were allowed. Besides, these applications were filed as per the statutory rights granted to him.
When the Court asked if the 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 has concealed the documents exculpating Sisodia.
He went on to submit that though the CBI had submitted the chargesheet a year ago, it still failed to file the underlying documents. Citing the Trial Court and the impugned judgment of the High Court, he said that the bail was rejected on the basis that there was no delay in the “pre-trial proceedings”. He averred that this is ultra vires of the Supreme Court's judgment. Singhvi vehemently argued that the Trial and the High Courts could not have gone behind the Supreme Court's judgment, but they did.
The second ground of challenge was that the High Court dismissed the bail, opining on the merits, which it ought not to have done. Arguing that there is a grave delay in the Trial and that the matter requires consideration, Sighvi requested the Court to issue the notice.
However, the Court was not inclined to issue the notice without listening to ED's objections. Therefore, Justice Kumar asked Solicitor Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, 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? "
Thereafter, Mehta submitted that as per Para 29 (as mentioned above for ready reference), any application of bail filed was to be considered by the trial court on merits without being influenced by the Supreme Court's order. On the protraction of the trial, he said that the "CM and the convener of the party"(referring to Arvind Kejriwal) did not appear for six months. He also said that the applicant raised the issue of non-supply of documents in the belated stage. Further, it was argued that the documents were supplied but the accused asked to supply the same again. To support this, he also referred to the applications for the supply of documents that were dismissed by the Trial Court on this 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 asked that if the Trial Court is able to find the charges, then how long will it take to examine the witnesses? At this, Mehta said that he did not mind the day-to-day trial. He also apprised the Court about an application filed before the Trial Court seeking a day-to-day trial. However, Singhvi said that these are all tactics to dismiss the present bail application.
Singhvi also said that the Supreme Court's judgment, penned by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, envisaged that the accused would not be incarcerated. Today, he said that he is asking for the bail application to be heard. He reiterated that the delay cannot be attributable to him. The Court cannot deny the valuable right to avail the legal remedy., he added.
Subsequently, the Court asked Mehta whether the investigation was complete for all the accused and if no supplementary chargesheet would be filed. In the post-lunch session, after taking instructions, Mehta said that the final chargesheet would be filed in three weeks.
"We will file the final chargesheet in 2 weeks...that is called the complaint...in PMLA," the SG said.
After this, Singhvi said that if the Court is not considering issuing the notice, then the Court may consider placing the matter before the appropriate Bench. However, the Court chose of dispose of the matter recording the undertaking made by the SG. The Court granted Sisodia liberty to revive his prayers for bail after the final complaint/chargesheet is filed.
Details Of The Impugned Order
While denying the bail, the Single judge bench of the Delhi High Court noted that Sisodia's case depicted a grave misuse of power and breach of trust. It added that the material collected in the matter showed that Sisodia subverted the process of making the excise policy by fabricating public feedback to suit his goal.
“In this Court's opinion, this deceptive act was a calculated move to create an illusion that the Excise policy was formed after careful consideration of feedback received from the public. But in reality, the feedback was manufactured to justify the applicant's predetermined decision to formulate the Excise policy, in defiance of the Expert Committee Report, to enrich a few individuals, in exchange for kickbacks.,” the Court added.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also observed that Sisodia did not pass the triple test for bail in the CBI case, as it was admitted that he had failed to produce two phones he used and claimed that they were damaged. The court said that the possibility of tempering with evidence by Sisodia cannot be ruled out. Bolstering its view, the Court also said that Sisodia was a powerful person, had responsibility for 18 ministries, and was influential.
“These senior officers, some of whom have given statements against him can be influenced in case he is released on bail. The applicant is also a senior leader of Aam Aadmi Party. Thus, he is an influential person within the power corridors of Delhi Government.,” the Court added in this context.
In respect of the PMLA case, the court said that the prosecution was able to make out a prima facie case of money laundering against Sisodia. However, the court said that Sisodia will be permitted to meet his wife every week and the trial court order allowing him to do so will continue.
Brief Background Of Earlier Legal Proceedings And Allegations
Sisodia approached court challenging the trial court orders dismissing his second bail pleas in both CBI and ED cases on April 30.
While denying him bail in the money laundering case, the trial court rejected Sisodia's plea that the proceedings in the case have been delayed or that the case is proceedings at a snail's pace. It was also observed that the so-called delay is clearly on account of reasons attributable to the AAP leader himself.
Sisodia was denied bail by the trial court, Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court in both ED and CBI cases. The Supreme Court had also dismissed Sisodia's review petitions against the denial of bail. His curative petitions have also been dismissed.
The Apex Court, while dismissing his bail plea, had last year said that he can file a fresh bail plea before the trial court if the trial proceeds at a snail's pace.
Manish Sisodia was first arrested by CBI and ED on February 26 and March 9 last year respectively. In the FIR registered by the CBI, Sisodia and others have been accused of being instrumental in 'recommending' and 'taking decisions' regarding the 2021-22 excise policy, “without the approval of competent authority with an intention to extend undue favours to the licensee post tender”.
The central agency has also claimed that the AAP leader was arrested because he gave evasive replies and refused to cooperate with the investigation, despite being confronted with evidence.
On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate has alleged that the excise policy was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12 percent to certain private companies, although such a stipulation was not mentioned in the minutes of meetings of Group of Ministers (GoM).
The agency has also claimed that there was a conspiracy that was coordinated by Vijay Nair and other individuals along with South Group to give extraordinary profit margins to wholesalers. Nair was acting on behalf of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, according to the agency.
Sisodia's bail applications in both cases were rejected by Special Judge MK Nagpal (now transferred) on March 31 and April 28 last year. The Delhi High Court then denied bail to Sisodia in both cases, after which he approached the Supreme Court to challenge both verdicts. On October 30 last year, the Supreme Court refused to grant bail to the former Delhi deputy chief minister.
Case Title: MANISH SISODIA Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT., SLP(Crl) No. 7795/2024