Bail is Rule and Jail is Exception – Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement

TOPIC:           BAIL IS RULE AND JAIL IS EXCEPTION

Supreme Court Rulings:

·       Prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.

·       It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”

Delhi Law Academy Jaipur presents below for aspirants of Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS), DJS, PCS (J) and other Judicial Services throughout India a very important judgment of the Supreme Court of India on the principles and conditions to be applied while considering a bail application.

Presented below: Summarized version [by Delhi Law Academy Jaipur] of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 INSC 595].

Original language of the judgment has been maintained; without any substitution or replacement.

This judgment running in 38 pages has been summarized in just about 4 pages by Delhi Law Academy while retaining the original language and necessary content.

MANISH SISODIA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2024 INSC 595]

J U D G M E N T

5. The present case travelled two rounds before the trial court, the High Court and this Court. This is now the third round before this Court wherein the appellant is seeking bail in connection with the aforesaid two cases.

6. On the basis of a letter dated 20th July 2022 addressed by Shri Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, alleging irregularities in the framing andimplementation of Delhi’s Excise Policy for the year 2021-22, the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs had directed an enquiry into the said matter vide Office Memorandum dated 22nd July 2022. On 26th February 2023, the appellant came to be arrested by the CBI. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested by the ED on 9th March 2023.

8. The first application for regular bail of the appellant in CBI matter came to be rejected by the High Court on 30th May 2023. Subsequently, the first application for regular bail of the appellant in ED matter came to be rejected by the High Court on 3rd July 2023. This Court, vide common order dated 30th October 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the first order of this Court”) rejected the regular bail applications of the appellant in the CBI matter and the ED matter, with certain observations which we will refer to in the subsequent paragraphs.

9. Subsequently, in view of the liberty granted by this Court, the appellant filed second bail application before the trial court on 27th January 2024. In the said proceedings, the appellant was granted interim protection. However, by an order dated 30th April 2024, the trial court rejected the said bail application on the ground that there was no change in the circumstances. 10. The appellant thereafter filed second bail application before the High Court on 2nd May 2024. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 21st May 2024, the learned Single Judge of the High Court rejected that bail application also.

11. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant had approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 7795 and 7799 of 2024. 12. The matter was heard on 4th June 2024. This Court, in the said order (hereinafter referred to as “the second order of this Court”) recorded the submissions of the learned Solicitor General that the investigation would be concluded and final complaint/charge-sheet would be filed expeditiously and at any rate on or before 3rd July 2024 and immediately thereafter, the trial court would be free to proceed with the trial. This Court recorded the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General and observed that having regard to the fact that the period of “6-8 months” fixed by this Court by order dated 30th October 2023 had not yet come to an end, disposed of the said petition with liberty to revive his prayer afresh after filing of the final complaint/charge-sheet.

13. Accordingly, after filing of the final complaint/charges-sheet, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeals.

50. 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.

51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an application for bail in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra wherein the accused was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

53. The Court further 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. 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 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 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 rule and jail is exception”

54. 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 pages 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. As observed time and again, the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.

55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.

56. In the present case, the appellant 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.

57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant.

58. In the result, we pass the following order:

(i) The appeals are allowed;

(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 21st May 2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024 is quashed and set aside;

(iii) The appellant is directed to be released on bail in connection with ED Case No. HIU-II/14/2022 registered against the appellant by the ED and FIR No. RC0032022A0053 of 2022 registered against the appellant by the CBI on furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount;

(iv) The appellant shall surrender his passport with the Special Court;

(v) The appellant shall report to the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10-11 AM; and

(vi) The appellant shall not make any attempt either to influence the witnesses or to tamper with the evidence.

Monthly Current Affairs →

Explore Our Blogs →