New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Friday said in a matter pertaining to life and liberty, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post and it will be a travesty of justice if AAP leader Manish Sisodia is relegated all the way down to trial court for relief.
A bench comprising justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said: "It will be a travesty of justice to construe that the carefully couched order preserving the right of the appellant to revive his prayer for grant of special leave against the High Court order, to mean that he should be relegated all the way down to the trial court". The central agencies, CBI and ED, had argued that Sisodia should be relegated to approach the trial court afresh to seek relief.
"The memorable adage, that procedure is a handmaiden and not a mistress of justice rings loudly in our ears", added the bench. The bench stressed that in a matter pertaining to the life and liberty of a citizen, which is one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by the Constitution, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post.
The top court refused to accept a preliminary objection by CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that Sisodia cannot be allowed to file a second set of special leave petitions to challenge the Delhi High Court's May 21 verdict which denied him bail in the excise policy case. The bench also referred to the October last year order, the first order, of the apex court which had denied bail to Sisodia in CBI and ED cases.
Citing the June 4 order, which disposed of Sisodia's plea challenging the High Court verdict, the bench said he was permitted to revive his bail petitions after the ED and CBI file their final prosecution complaint and chargesheet respectively.
On June 4, the apex court had granted liberty to Sisodia to revive his prayer for bail after filing of the chargesheet.
"This court noticed the assurance of the Solicitor General that the investigation would be concluded and a final complaint/chargesheet would be filed at any rate on or before 3rd July 2024. This Court further observed in its second order that since the period of 6-8 months fixed by it in its first order had not come to an end, it was inclined to dispose of this petition with liberty to the appellant to revive his prayer," said the bench.
The bench said insofar as the contention of the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju that since the conditions as provided under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are not satisfied, the appellant is not entitled to grant of bail is concerned, it will be apposite to refer to the first order of this court.
Referring to its October 2023 order, the bench said this court observed that 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 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA. "The Court held 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", said the bench.
The bench further said from the first order of this court, it would be clear that an assurance was given at the Bar on behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next 6-8 months.