The Supreme Court on Friday said that senior AAP leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia cannot be kept behind bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of a speedy completion of trial in the excise policy case.

Pronouncing the verdict on Sisodia’s bail pleas, a Bench presided over by Justice BR Gavai said, “In the present case, in ED as well as CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named and the case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitised documents.

Advertisement

“It is thus clear that there is not even a remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive him of the Fundamental Right of Liberty given under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Bench, also comprising Justice KV Viswanathan held that on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial not having commenced, the senior AAP leader has been deprived of his right to speedy trial.

“The right to speedy trial and Right to Liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court, ought to have given due weightage to this factor,” it said, setting aside the orders of the court below denying bail to Sisodia.

Further, the apex court, in its judgment, noted that Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Raju, who appeared on behalf of central agencies, could not point out a single order of the trial court terming any of the applications filed by Sisodia as “frivolous”.

It said, “It has been submitted on behalf of the ED that hundreds of applications have been filed for supply of un-relied upon documents, the record would not substantiate the said position. Though various applications have been filed by different accused persons, in so far as the present appellant (Sisodia) is concerned, he has filed only 13 applications in the CBI matter and 14 in ED matter. It would reveal that some of the applications are for seeking permission to meet his ailing wife, permission to file vakalatnama, to put signature on documents, seeking permission to sign cheques, etc.

“Most of the applications are for supply of missing documents and legible copies of documents, and some of the applications are for inspection of un-relied upon documents.

“It is further to note that all these applications have been allowed by the learned trial court….We find that the finding of the learned trial judge that it is the appellant who is responsible for delaying the trial is not supported by the record.”

The top court ruled that the accused is entitled to take a reasonable time to inspect the trial record involving 69,000 pages and cannot be denied inspection of documents for a fair trial.

Rejecting the contention that Sisodia if granted bail may tamper with the evidence, the Supreme Court said that the prosecution case majorly stems from documentary evidence, which has already been seized by the CBI and the ED.

To rule out the possibility of influencing witnesses by the accused, imposing stringent conditions, the apex court asked Sisodia to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10 lakh with two sureties of like amount.

It ordered Sisodia to surrender his passport with the special court and to report to the investigative officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 to 11 A.M.

“The appellant shall not make any attempt to either influence the witnesses or to tamper with the evidence,” it added.

The SC refused to accept ASG Raju’s submission that Sisodia should not be allowed to visit the Delhi CM’s office or Delhi Secretariat.

In its judgment delivered on October 30 last year, the top court had denied bail to the former Deputy CM but said that if the trial proceeds slowly in the next three months, he may apply for bail afresh.

Special Judge Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Court had on April 30 refused to grant bail to Sisodia who was seeking regular bail for a second time.

Denying bail, the trial court order noted that delays in the case proceedings were largely due to actions attributable to Sisodia himself, dismissing his claims of undue delay.

Subsequently, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Sisodia, saying that he failed to pass the triple test for grant of bail in the corruption case and the twin conditions required under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

Challenging this, the former Deputy CM filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.

Last month, the apex court had disposed of the pleas seeking bail in corruption and money laundering cases after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta gave an undertaking that the final charge sheet/complaint in the liquor policy case would be filed by July 3.