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.
"A perusal of the material placed on record would clearly reveal that far from the trial being concluded within a period of 6-8 months, it is even yet to commence. Though in the first order of this Court, liberty was reserved to move afresh for bail if the trial proceeded at a snail's pace within a period of three months from the date of the said order, the commencement of the trial is yet to see the light of the day," noted the bench.
Delay in the trial can’t be attributed to Sisodia
The apex court said the finding of the trial judge that it is the appellant who is responsible for delaying the trial is not supported by the record. The bench noted that the single judge of the Delhi High Court endorses the finding of the trial court on the ground that the accused persons have taken three months’ time from 19th October 2023 to 19th January 2024 for inspection of "un-relied upon documents" despite repeated directions from the trial court to conclude the same expeditiously.
"It is to be noted that there are around 69,000 pages of documents involved in both the CBI and the ED matters. Taking into consideration the huge magnitude of the documents involved, it cannot be stated that the accused is not entitled to take a reasonable time for inspection of the said documents”, noted the apex court.
The bench said in order to avail the right to fair trial, the accused cannot be denied the right to have inspection of the documents including the “un-relied upon documents".
Citing that the 8th charge-sheet has been filed on 28th June 2024 by the ED, the bench said: "It could thus be seen that, even according to the respondents, the investigation was to be concluded on or before 3rd July 2024. In that view of the matter, we find that the contention raised by the ASG is self-contradictory. If the investigation itself was to conclude on or before 3rd July 2024, the question is how could the trial have commenced prior to that?"
"If the investigation itself was to conclude after a period of 8 months from the date of the first order of this Court, there was no question of the trial being concluded within a period of 6-8 months from the date of the first order of this Court. We find that both the High Court and the trial court have failed to take this into consideration," said the bench.
The bench said in its 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, prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial", it said.
The top court directed Sisodia to surrender his passport with the special court and report to the investigating officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10-11 AM. "The appellant shall not make any attempt either to influence the witnesses or to tamper with the evidence," said the bench.
The counsel for central agencies insisted that the court should impose bail conditions on Sisodia like in the case of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, but the bench did not agree.
