 | « Back to article | Print this article |
Citizens cannot be made to run from pillar to post in matters pertaining to life and liberty which is one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the Supreme Court said on Friday.
The apex court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia cannot be permitted to file second set of special leave petitions to challenge the Delhi high court's May 21 verdict which denied him bail in the excise policy cases.
While granting bail to Sisodia in the corruption and money laundering cases linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam, the top court noted the counsel appearing for probe agencies had argued that he should be relegated to approach the trial court afresh for seeking relief.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan referred to the apex court's June 4 order which had disposed of Sisodia's plea challenging the high court verdict.
The top court had then said that Sisodia can revive his bail petitions after the ED and CBI file their final prosecution complaint and charge sheet respectively.
"Now, relegating the appellant to again approach the trial court and thereafter the high court and only thereafter this court, in our view, would be making him play a game of 'Snake and Ladder'," the bench said.
It said the apex court on June 4 had granted liberty to Sisodia to revive his prayer for bail after filing of the charge sheet.
"The trial court and the high court have already taken a view and in our view relegating the appellant again to the trial court and the high court would be an empty formality," it said.
"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 bench observed.
The bench said in its June 4 order, the top court had noted the assurance given by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that probe would be concluded and final complaint or charge sheet would be filed by July 3.
"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 bench said.
"The memorable adage, that procedure is a hand maiden and not a mistress of justice rings loudly in our ears," it said.
The bench said the liberty reserved by the apex court in its June 4 order will have to be construed as a liberty given to revive his prayer afresh after filing of final complaint or charge sheet.
"Undisputedly, the present appeals have been filed after the final complaint/charge-sheet has been filed by the respondents. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the preliminary objection and the same is rejected," it said.
The bench also referred to the October 30 last year order of the apex court which had denied bail to Sisodia in both these cases.
"A perusal of the aforesaid (October 30 order) would reveal that this court was concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the appellant. After considering various earlier pronouncements, this court emphasised that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of the Constitution," it noted.
The bench said in its October 30 last year order, the top court had recorded the assurance given by the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next six to eight months.
It said the court had granted liberty to Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances or in case the trial was protracted and proceeded at a snail's pace in next three months.
The bench also dealt with contentions raised by prosecution that since the conditions as provided under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were not satisfied, Sisodia was not entitled to bail.
Section 45 of PMLA pertains to offences to be cognisable and non-bailable and stipulates certain conditions for bail.
"It could thus clearly be seen that this court, in the first round of litigation between the parties, has specifically observed that in case of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period and depending on the nature of the allegations, the right to bail will have to be read into section 45 of PMLA," the bench said.
The former deputy chief minister of Delhi was arrested by the CBI on February 26, 2023 for the purported irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy 2021-22.
The ED arrested him in the money laundering case stemming from the CBI FIR on March 9, 2023. He resigned from the Delhi cabinet on February 28, 2023.
'High time HCs, trial courts recognise principle of bail is rule and jail exception'
It is high time the trial courts and high courts recognised the principle that 'bail is rule and jail is exception', the Supreme Court said on Friday while flagging that the courts below appear to 'play safe' in matters of bail.
The bench said on account of non-grant of bail even in 'straight forward open and shut cases', the apex court was flooded with a number of bail petitions which adds to the huge pendency.
Referring to a recent judgment of the apex court, the bench noted it had 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,' the bench said in its 38-page verdict.
'It is high time that the trial courts and the high courts should recognise the principle that 'bail is rule and jail is exception',' it said.
The bench said as observed time and again, prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become 'punishment without trial'.
Referring to Sisodia's matter, the bench said a total of 493 witnesses have been named in the cases lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
It noted that these cases involve thousands of pages of paper documents and over a lakh pages of digitised 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 (Sisodia) 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," the bench said.