New Delhi [India], October 30 (ANI): Rule of law means that laws apply equally to all citizens and institutions, including the state, the Supreme Court remarked on Monday while dismissing the bail plea of former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti rejected the bail pleas of Manish Sisodia.
Manish Sisodia has moved the Supreme Court for bail in CBI and ED cases related to alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy case.
“Rule of law means that laws apply equally to all citizens and institutions, including the State. The rule of law requires an equal right to access to justice for the marginalised. The rule also mandates objective and fair treatment to all. Thirdly, rule of law is a check on the arbitrary use of powers. It secures legitimate exercise of power for public good,” the top court said.
The court considered various aspects while denying relief to Sisodia. It also took into account the submission made by CBI.
On this aspect of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the CBI has submitted that conspiracy and involvement of the appellant Manish Sisodia is well established.
“For the sake of clarity, without making any additions, subtractions, or a detailed analysis, we would like to recapitulate what is stated in the chargesheet filed by the CBI against the appellant – Manish Sisodia,” read the order copy.
The top court recapitulated the facts as alleged by probe agencies to establish the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act and the PoC Act.
The court noted that the existing excise policy was changed to facilitate and get kickbacks and bribes from the wholesale distributors by enhancing their commission/fee from 5 per cent under the old policy to 12 per cent under the new policy.
Accordingly, a conspiracy was hatched to carefully draft the new policy, deviating from the expert opinion/views to create an eco-system to ensure unjust enrichment of the wholesale distributors at the expense of the government exchequer or the consumer. The illegal income (proceeds of crime, as per the DoE) would partly be recycled and returned in the form of bribes, it noted.
The probe agency has alleged that Vijay Nair, who was the middleman, a go-between, a member of AAP, and a co-confidant of the appellant – Manish Sisodia, had interacted with Butchi Babu, Arun Pillai, Abhishek Boinpally and Sarath Reddy, to frame the excise policy on conditions and terms put forth and to the satisfaction and desire of the liquor group.
The policy favoured and promoted cartelisation and large wholesale distributors with high market share because of extraneous reasons and kickbacks, were ensured to earn exorbitant profits, CBI alleged, which was noted by the court.
The top court also noted the CBI’s submission that the excess amount of 7 per cent commission/fee earned by the wholesale distributors of Rs.338,00,00,000 (Rupees three hundred thirty-eight crores only) constitute an offence as defined under Section 7 of the PoC Act, relating to a public servant being bribed. (As per the DoE, these are proceeds of crime).
This amount was earned by the wholesale distributors in a span of ten months. This figure cannot be disputed or challenged. Thus, the new excise policy was meant to give windfall gains to a select few wholesale distributors, who in turn had agreed to give kickbacks and bribes, the agency’s submission being taken into account by the court.
“In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated, we are not inclined to accept the prayer for grant of bail at this stage,” the top court said.
However, it also noted the argument made by the appellant – Manish Sisodia, who has argued that given the number of witnesses, 294 in the prosecution filed by the CBI and 162 in the prosecution filed by the DoE, and the documents 31,000 pages and 25,000 pages respectively, the fact that the CBI has filed multiple charge sheets, the arguments of charge have not commenced.
“It was also stated at the Bar, by the prosecution that the trial would be concluded within the next six to eight months,” the court noted.
“Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious,” the top court said.
It further said that while the prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom, mass violence, etc.
“Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The allegations have to be established and proven. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This would be truer where the trial would take years,” the top court said.
“In view of the assurance given at the Bar on behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within the next six to eight months, we give liberty to the appellant – Manish Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in next three months,” the top court said.
It also clarified that if any application for bail is filed in the above circumstances, the same would be considered by the trial court on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail application, including the present judgment.
“Observations made above, re.: right to speedy trial, will, however, be taken into consideration. The appellant – Manish Sisodia may also file an application for interim bail in case of ill- health and medical emergency due to illness of his wife. Such application would be also examined on its own merits,” the court also said.
Recently, the Supreme Court reserved the judgement on the bail pleas of Manish Sisodia in liquor policy irregularities cases.
Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia has challenged the Delhi HC order rejecting his bail pleas. On July 3 this year, the Delhi High Court denied him bail in both matters.
In February 2023, Sisodia was arrested by the CBI for alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of now-scrapped Delhi’s new excise policy. The policy was withdrawn amid allegations of foul play by the opposition. Sisodia is currently in judicial custody.
According to the CBI, Sisodia had played the most important and 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.
