Delhi excise policy: Supreme Court reserves verdict on Manish Sisodia’s bail plea

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its order on the bail plea of former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) whether the trial in the Delhi excise policy scam case would end soon.
Sisodia is facing probe from both agencies for allegedly benefitting private players by formulating the now-scrapped 2021-22 liquor excise policy.
With 493 witnesses to be examined in the CBI case and the trial yet to begin, the bench of justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said, “Realistically, tell us with 493 witnesses, even if you drop 50% of the witnesses, do you see any end of the tunnel?”
To be sure, CBI has filed eight charge sheets against 57 accused and the trial court has so far taken cognisance of only four charge sheets. In the ED case too, 224 witnesses have been listed with 40 persons named as accused so far.
Sisodia, who has been incarcerated in this case for more than 16 months, alleged delay in trial to seek bail and claimed there was no allegation that he tampered with any evidence. The top court had on October 30 refused to grant him bail, but kept a window open to revive his appeal if the trial does not begin in the next 6-8 months.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, representing both the agencies, informed the court that the delay was because the accused filed 118 applications seeking inspection of documents unrelated to the filing of the complaint (charge sheet). He said that the agency cannot be blamed for delaying the trial as investigation can go on without impacting the trial. It was stated that the charge sheet concerning Sisodia was filed way back in May 2023 and the trial could have proceeded but for the fact that Sisodia kept filing applications for inspection of documents which delayed trial.
“Show us any order which says the application (by Sisodia) was frivolous or vexatious or meant to delay the 6 to 8 months window he got for trial to begin. We find no application is dismissed. Most applications are allowed,” the bench said.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sisodia along with advocate Vivek Jain, pointed out that out of 118 applications attributed to him, Sisodia filed only 14.
Raju pointed out that these were delaying tactics adopted by the accused as it is always open for the petitioner or other accused to seek discharge in this case before charges are framed. “I never told the trial court that my investigation is pending so do not proceed with the trial. How can delay be attributable to me. On the contrary, I filed an application to expedite trial,” Raju said.
The court reminded ED that on June 4, when Sisodia moved for bail in the top court challenging the Delhi high court’s May 21 order that denied him bail, a categorical statement was made by ED that it was in the process of filing its final complaint (charge sheet) by July 3.
Finding “incongruity” in ED’s submissions, the bench remarked, “You kept saying that we will be filing our charge sheet. So, the assumption is that you wanted all charge sheets to be filed for trial to begin. Now to say that we wanted trial to be begin but they delayed, is there not some incongruence in your submission.”
Further, the court pointed out that the October 30 order did not suggest that the trial is to be delayed by prosecution or the accused. “The order simply says if trial moves at snail’s pace, it does not say if prosecution alone delays,” the bench said. Even on the agency’s plea that it was open to the accused to move an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the court read out the preceding provision of Section 226 CrPC which requires the prosecution to open its case based on the charge sheets.
“The first stage is to be done by whom… Unless you do not complete the process under Section 226, how can they avail remedy under Section 227. It is for them to decide when to file discharge application,” the court said.
As Sisodia had also sought interim bail citing the deteriorating health of his wife, a patient of multiple sclerosis, the ASG opposed even interim release on bail citing the possibility of crucial witnesses getting influenced. Raju said, “There are 8 to 10 such witnesses. They are officers under the Delhi government of whom some have become approvers and have recorded their statements before the Magistrate. Some of them have even been threatened by other accused. We require to record their testimonies so that they are not influenced.”
Terming such an argument a “sham”, Singhvi told the court that till date there is no material to suggest Sisodia had influenced witnesses. “This is just to prejudice the court and delay my incarceration. We are talking about a person who has been denied speedy trial by remaining in prison for 17 months. He has roots in society and even if I sneeze, they have the liberty to seek cancellation of my bail which they will. Court’s arms are long enough to reach him. Will anybody be so foolish given these circumstances,” Singhvi said.
He also pointed out that the excise policy was not handled by him alone but by several officers, including the then Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal, for a period of one year since September 2020 when the first decision regarding the framing of policy was taken.
Sisodia was arrested in February 2023 by CBI followed by ED a month later after a case was registered based on a complaint by Delhi L-G VK Saxena in July 2022 alleging irregularities in the excise policy. Besides Sisodia, Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and AAP MP Sanjay Singh have also been arrested in connection with the ED probe.