Telling both the trial courts and the High Courts to recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception” the Supreme court on Friday granted bail to former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi and Aam Aadmi Party leader, Manish Sisodia in the excise policy case.
He had been in jail for the past 18 months after being arrested in the case by the Central Bureau of Investigation in February 2023.
Noting that there are 493 witnesses, thousands of pages of documents, over a lakh page of digitized documents and the trial in the case will take a long time to conclude, Justice B.R. Gavai heading a bench also comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan in a judgment said, “It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
Speaking for the bench, Justice Gavai said, “In the present case, in the ED matter as well as the CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh page of digitized documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Directing Sisodia to surrender his passport, report to the investigating officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10-11 AM, and make no attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, the judgment said that the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial, noting that Sisodia has been behind the bar for many months.
The court also directed Sisodia to furnish bail bonds for a sum of Rs.10,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
Noting Sisodia’s deep roots in the society and being no flight risk, the judgment said, “In the present case, the appellant (Sisodia) is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State.”
The court declined the Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju’s plea seeking to prevent Sisodia from going to his office in Delhi secretariat as was ordered by the top court in the case of incarcerated Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal when he was granted 21 days bail on May 10, 2024 to participate in the Lok Sabha election.
Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju appeared for the CBI and the ED.
While granting 21 days bail to Kejriwal so that he could participate in the electioneering of the then ongoing Lok Sabha election, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta had directed him not to attend his office or go to Delhi government secretariat during the period of his limited release.
On the reluctance of the trial courts and the High Courts to grant bail, the top court observed that over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Gavai said, “From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that the bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with a huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
“As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the 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,” the top court said.
Noting that the investigation in the case itself was to conclude on or before July 3, the court said, “If the investigation itself was to conclude on or before 3rd July 2024, the question is how could the trial have commenced prior to that? If the investigation itself was to conclude after a period of 8 months from the date of the first order of this Court, there was no question of the trial being concluded within a period of 6-8 months from the date of the first order of this Court. We find that both the High Court and the trial court have failed to take this into consideration.”
“In that view of the matter, 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 said.
The top court further said, “The learned Single Judge of the High Court endorses the finding of the trial court on the ground that the accused persons have taken three months’ time from 19th October 2023 to 19th January 2024 for inspection of “un-relied upon documents” despite repeated directions from the learned trial court to conclude the same expeditiously. It is to be noted that there are around 69,000 pages of documents involved in both the CBI and the ED matters.”
Pointing to the voluminous documents, the court said, “”Taking into consideration the huge magnitude of the documents involved; it cannot be stated that the accused is not entitled to take a reasonable time for inspection of the said documents. In order to avail the right to fair trial, the accused cannot be denied the right to have inspection of the documents including the “un-relied upon documents.”
On the ED’s contention that after the filing of the final charge-sheet by it, Sisodia should have approached the trial court for bail, the top court said that relegating Sisodia to trial court and then the High Court will be like playing a game of snake and ladder.
Sisodia had approached the top court seeking the revival of his plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s order on May 21.
The CBI has alleged that Sisodia played the most vital role in the criminal conspiracy and he had been deeply involved in the formulation as well as the implementation of the said policy to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the said conspiracy.