LexMANISH SISODIA versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1061 : 2024 INSC 595 Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024) 09 August 2024 [B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Appellant was incarcerated for around 17 months, trial yet to commence. Bail denied. Whether the trial court and the High Court correctly considered the observations made by this Court with regard to right to speedy trial and prolonged period of incarceration. The claim of the appellant was rejected applying the triple test contemplated under Section 45, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Whether the right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 45 of the PMLA. Whether the appellant was deprived of his right to speedy trial and if entitled to grant of bail. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Delhi’s Excise Policy Cases, irregularities alleged in the framing and implementation – Cases by CBI and ED, appellant arrested – Previously two rounds of litigation, present is the third round – Incarceration for a long period – Delay in trial, bail rejected – Right to bail – Right to speedy trial – Right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period, if should be read into Section 439 CrPC, 1973 and Section 45 of the PMLA: Held: Yes – 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 – It is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted that he be ensured and given a speedy trial – When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons would * Author 1062 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports exercise the power to grant bail – Provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA would not come in the way of consideration of the application of the appellant for grant of bail – On account of a long period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant was deprived of his right to speedy trial – On facts, in view of the first order of this Court, the appellant was entitled to renew his request – 493 witnesses were named in the ED and the CBI matter – The case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitized documents – There is not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future – Appellant would be deprived of his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 if kept behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial – Impugned judgment of the High Court quashed and set aside – Appellant granted bail in both ED and the CBI case on the conditions imposed. [Paras 37-39, 43, 49, 54, 58] Criminal Law – Right to fair trial – Right of the accused to inspect documents including “un-relied upon documents”: Held: Accused has the right to fair trial, cannot be denied the right to have inspection of the documents including the “un-relied upon documents”. [Para 47] Bail – To be granted as a rule, jail is exception – Non- observance by Courts, deprecated: Held: Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment – Trial courts and High Courts play safe in matters of grant of bail and the principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach – It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”. [Para 53] Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) – Preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the second set of SLPs – Delhi’s Excise Policy Cases, irregularities alleged in the framing and implementation – Cases by CBI and ED, appellant arrested – Previously two rounds of litigation, present is the third round before this Court – In earlier rounds of litigation, liberty was granted to the appellant to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances or in case the trial was [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1063 Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement protracted – Preliminary objection was raised as regards the maintainability of the present appeals on account of the second order of this Court, contending that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.