Introduction
In the case of Manish Sisodia v. ED[i], the Supreme Court examined critical issues related to the right to a speedy trial and the consequences of prolonged pre-trial detention. The appellant, arrested in connection with allegations involving Delhi’s Excise Policy, faced significant delays in the judicial process despite previous directives from the Supreme Court to expedite the trial. This case raised important questions about whether these delays, coupled with the appellant’s continued detention, violated the fundamental right guaranteed under a. 21 of the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’). The case, therefore, highlights the tension between ensuring a fair trial and upholding constitutional protections against prolonged incarceration.
Facts
Chronology of the Case: Mapping Key Dates & Events
The case began in July 2022 when the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi raised allegations of irregularities in the framing and implementing of Delhi’s Excise Policy for 2021-22 through a letter. Consequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs initiated an enquiry into the matter.
Following the enquiry, the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) registered an FIR against the appellant in August 2022. Shortly thereafter, the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) registered a case against the appellant based on the predicate offence mentioned in the CBI’s FIR.
The CBI arrested the appellant in February 2023 and the ED in March 2023. The CBI and ED filed a charge-sheet and complaint in April and May 2023, respectively. The appellant’s first applications for regular bail were rejected by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (‘High Court’) in May 2023 in the CBI matter and in July 2023 in the ED matter.
In October 2023, the Supreme Court, in a common order, rejected the appellant’s bail applications in both matters (CBI & ED) but granted the liberty to file fresh applications if the trial did not conclude within the next 6-8 months, or if the trial proceeded at a snail’s pace over the next three months.
In January 2024, the appellant filed a second bail application before the trial court, which initially granted interim protection but later rejected the application in April 2024, citing no change in circumstances. The appellant then approached the High Court with a second bail application, which was also rejected on 21.05.2024.
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by filing special leave petitions (SLPs), wherein the Supreme Court disposed of the petitions with the liberty to revive the prayer after filing the final complaint/charge-sheet. Once the final complaint/charge-sheet was filed in July 2024, the appellant filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court, challenging the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the High Court rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant.
The Appellant’s & Respondent’s Legal Standpoints
The appellant argued that the Supreme Court, in its October 2023 order, granted liberty to seek bail if the trial did not conclude within 6-8 months or proceeded slowly, both of which had occurred. The appellant further contended that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case, as highlighted by the Supreme Court’s findings, and that the investigation remained incomplete, with new supplementary charges and a vast amount of evidence, making a timely trial conclusion unlikely. The appellant also accused the ED of deliberately withholding exculpatory documents essential for a fair trial, forcing the appellant to file necessary applications under s. 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The appellant argued that these actions were crucial for ensuring justice, not delaying the trial, and thus warranted the granting of bail.
The respondent argued that the appellant could not file a second set of SLPs challenging the same order of the High Court after the first set was disposed of. Further, the Supreme Court’s earlier order allowed the appellant to seek bail afresh at the trial court, not directly in the Supreme Court. The respondent also contended that the Supreme Court had already rejected the appellant’s bail on merits, and both the trial court and High Court rightly considered these merits when denying bail rather than merely focusing on trial delays. The respondent further asserted that the appellant deliberately delayed the trial by filing numerous applications under s. 207 of the CrPC, and he did not meet the bail conditions under s. 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), as the Supreme Court had already determined that the appellant was not entitled to bail on merits. Additionally, the respondent asserted that there was a significant risk the appellant could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if granted bail, given his past position as Deputy Chief Minister.
Held
While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant and made the following observations: -
Maintainability: Responding to the respondent’s argument that the appellant could not file a second set of SLPs challenging the High Court’s order after the first set was disposed of, the Supreme noted that the appellant’s right to a speedy trial under a. 21 of the Constitution was paramount. Therefore, in its July 2024 order, the Supreme Court granted the appellant the liberty to file a new bail application if circumstances changed or the trial continued progressing slowly. Thus, the issue of maintainability does not arise.
Right to Speedy Trial v. S. 45 of the PMLA: The Supreme Court observed that, despite its order to expedite the trial, significant delays had occurred, with the trial still not commencing even after 7 months from the initial order. This delay and the prolonged incarceration deprived the appellant of his right to a speedy trial.
The Supreme Court further addressed concerns related to s. 45 of the PMLA, stating that the prolonged incarceration and delay in the trial should influence the decision on bail. It emphasised that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment and reiterated that ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception.’
The Court also noted that the trial and High Court had improperly attributed the delay to the appellant and failed to consider the right to a speedy trial adequately. The Supreme Court pointed out that the ED itself admitted that the investigation was expected to conclude by July 2024, contradicting its expectation that the trial would start within 6-8 months, as observed in the October 2023 order. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the courts below had not properly considered these factors in their decisions.
Other Arguments by the Respondent: Regarding concerns about tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, the Supreme Court found that stringent conditions could address these issues. Therefore, the Court favoured granting bail, taking into account the prolonged incarceration, trial delays, and the necessity to uphold constitutional rights.
Our Analysis
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the present case stands as a landmark judgment, particularly in the realm of economic offences, where the principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ is seldom observed. This case marks a significant deviation from the prevailing judicial trend, where courts often lean towards prolonged pre-trial detention, especially in matters involving economic offences under special statutes like the PMLA. The Court’s ruling reinforces the constitutional mandate that pre-trial detention should not serve as a form of punishment, particularly when the delays in the trial are neither attributable to the accused nor justifiable by the prosecution.
One of the most critical aspects of this decision is the Supreme Court’s clarification regarding the scope of the ‘liberty’ generally granted in orders where bail is rejected, which seemed like a consolation prize. The Court emphatically stated that the accused is not required to undergo the arduous and often protracted process of sequentially approaching the trial court, the High Court, and then the Supreme Court – a process often likened to a ‘snake & ladder’ game. This clarification is of immense significance, as it simplifies the procedural labyrinth that accused individuals frequently encounter, particularly in cases involving complex economic offences. By streamlining this process, the Court has effectively reduced the potential for judicial delays that could infringe upon an accused’s fundamental rights.
Moreover, the decision highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights, even within the context of statutes governing economic offences, which are generally subject to stringent and less accommodating principles of bail. The Court’s ruling reiterates that the right to a speedy trial, enshrined under a. 21 of the Constitution, should not be subordinated to the stringent provisions of economic offence statutes. This approach highlights a broader judicial perspective that seeks to balance the imperatives of justice with the protection of fundamental rights, even in cases where the allegations involve significant financial misconduct.
Undoubtedly, the Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms the centrality of constitutional protections in the criminal justice system and sets a precedent that could influence future jurisprudence in PMLA cases. By granting bail in this context, the Court has reassured the importance of timely justice. It has taken a pivotal step towards ensuring that constitutional rights are not rendered illusory by procedural delays or the severity of the charges at the stage of bail. This judgment is likely to be referred to in future cases as a beacon of judicial commitment to the principle that justice delayed is justice denied.
End Note
[i] [2024] 165 taxmann.com 323 (SC), [09-08-2024].
Authored by Shivam Mishra, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
Comments