A) Abstract / Headnote

This judgment addresses the prolonged incarceration of the appellant, Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, under charges related to alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy, 2021-22. Arrested by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), the appellant faced denial of bail despite 17 months of detention and a lack of trial commencement. The court examined the applicability of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, emphasizing the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, observing procedural delays not attributable to the appellant, ruled that his prolonged incarceration violated his right to a speedy trial, thereby granting bail subject to stringent conditions.

Keywords:

1. Right to Speedy Trial
2. Prolonged Incarceration
3. Prevention of Money Laundering Act
4. Bail Rule and Jail Exception
5. Delhi Excise Policy Case

B) Case Details

i. Judgment Cause Title:
Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement

ii. Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024

iii. Judgment Date:
9 August 2024

iv. Court:
Supreme Court of India

v. Quorum:
Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

vi. Author:
Justice B.R. Gavai

vii. Citation:
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1061 : 2024 INSC 595

viii. Legal Provisions Involved:

• Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Section 45)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 439)
• Constitution of India (Article 21)

ix. Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
Not explicitly mentioned.

x. Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:

• Criminal Law
• Money Laundering and Economic Offences
• Constitutional Law

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

The case arose from allegations of irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy, 2021-22, which purportedly led to monetary benefits being conferred unlawfully to private entities. Following an initial complaint from the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, investigations by the CBI and ED culminated in the arrest of Manish Sisodia in early 2023. As the legal process unfolded, the appellant filed multiple bail applications citing delays in trial and prolonged pre-trial detention.

Despite the Supreme Court earlier reserving the appellant’s right to renew his bail application, the trial court and High Court denied bail, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court assessed the procedural history, weighed constitutional guarantees, and revisited its previous orders.

D) Facts of the Case

• The appellant was arrested by the CBI on 26 February 2023 under charges related to corruption.
• Subsequently, the ED arrested him on 9 March 2023 for money laundering offenses based on the predicate CBI offense.
• Investigations produced voluminous documentation, including 493 witnesses and over one lakh pages of digitized evidence.
• The appellant argued procedural delays, emphasizing that despite assurances of trial completion within six to eight months, trial proceedings had yet to commence.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether the prolonged incarceration of the appellant violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution?
2. Whether bail can be granted under Section 439 of CrPC and Section 45 of the PMLA, considering the delay in trial proceedings?
3. Whether the trial court and High Court erred in denying bail by misapplying the triple test under Section 45 of the PMLA?

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. The appellant highlighted the procedural delay in the trial, which violated his fundamental right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Volume of evidence and the impracticality of completing the trial within a reasonable period rendered the incarceration punitive rather than procedural.
3. The triple test under Section 45 of the PMLA had been erroneously applied without adequate regard for the lack of a prima facie case.
4. The appellant emphasized judicial precedents such as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980), which reinforced the principle of bail as the rule and jail as the exception.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. The ED and CBI argued the appellant’s high influence and potential to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses if released.
2. The prosecution cited Section 45 of the PMLA, emphasizing its restrictive provisions against granting bail.
3. Procedural delays were partially attributed to the defense, which allegedly filed numerous frivolous applications.

H) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The right to bail in cases of delay and prolonged incarceration must be read into Section 439 of CrPC and Section 45 of the PMLA, considering the constitutional guarantee under Article 21.
2. Procedural delays attributable to the prosecution cannot justify indefinite detention.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Courts must actively discourage the trend of denial of bail becoming a routine, recognizing the principle of bail as the rule and jail as the exception.
2. Delay in trial proceedings due to the magnitude of evidence and witnesses must not result in deprivation of fundamental rights.

c. Guidelines

The appellant was granted bail under the following conditions:

• Furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
• Surrender passport to the special court.
• Report to the Investigating Officer twice weekly.
• Avoid tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

I) Conclusion & Comments

The judgment serves as a crucial precedent emphasizing the importance of balancing stringent statutory provisions like Section 45 of the PMLA with constitutional guarantees under Article 21. It highlights judicial responsibility in preventing procedural delays from infringing upon fundamental rights, especially the right to a speedy trial.

J) References

1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565
2. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81
3. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929
4. Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240