Supreme Court Grants Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Citing Article 21 Rights

The Supreme Court of India granted bail to former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia in the Delhi Liquor Policy Scam case, citing violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Read the full analysis of the 2024 judgment.

Introduction: A Landmark Bail Order by the Supreme Court

On August 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy Scam. The bail was granted due to prolonged incarceration and procedural delays, which the Court found to be in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution—the right to life and personal liberty.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had arrested Sisodia in 2023, and he remained in custody for over 17 months without the trial commencing.

Factual Background: What Triggered the Case?

The case originated from allegations that the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–2022 was manipulated to benefit certain private players in the liquor industry. The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi initially flagged these irregularities, prompting ED and CBI investigations.

• CBI Arrest: February 26, 2023 – on corruption charges

• ED Arrest: March 9, 2023 – for money laundering under PMLA Section 3

• Over 493 witnesses and 1 lakh+ pages of digital evidence were collected.

Despite such extensive evidence, the trial had not begun even after 17 months, raising concerns over violation of the right to a speedy trial.

Key Legal Issues in the Case

1. Violation of Article 21

Whether prolonged pre-trial detention violated the appellant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

2. Bail Eligibility Under PMLA and CrPC

Whether bail could be granted under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 45 of the PMLA due to procedural delays.

3. Misapplication of the Triple Test

Whether the lower courts misapplied the triple test under Section 45 of PMLA in denying bail.

Arguments Presented

By the Appellant (Manish Sisodia)

• Cited unreasonable delay in starting the trial.

• Argued that his detention was punitive due to the case’s complexity.

• Emphasized legal precedents like Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980), which uphold bail as the norm.

By the Respondents (ED & CBI)

• Claimed the appellant had the power to influence witnesses.

• Cited strict bail provisions under PMLA Section 45.

• Blamed procedural delays partially on the defense filing frivolous applications.

Supreme Court Judgment Highlights

Ratio Decidendi (Binding Legal Principle)

The Court ruled that:

• Procedural delays caused by the prosecution cannot justify indefinite incarceration.

• Bail must be considered under CrPC Section 439 and PMLA Section 45 in light of Article 21 rights.

Obiter Dicta (Judicial Observations)

• Courts should not treat denial of bail as routine.

• Delay caused by the large volume of evidence must not infringe constitutional rights.

Bail Conditions Set by the Supreme Court

The bail was granted with strict conditions:

• ₹1 crore bail bond and two sureties of the same amount

• Surrender of passport to the special court

• Bi-weekly reports to the investigating officer

• Prohibition on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence

Conclusion: Significance of the Judgment

The Manish Sisodia bail judgment sets an important legal precedent. It reinforces the balance between stringent statutory provisions like PMLA Section 45 and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.

This Supreme Court decision underlines the judiciary’s responsibility in ensuring that procedural delays do not result in unjust incarceration, affirming the legal principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.