Manish Sisodia bail: Here’s why SC granted bail to AAP leader Manish Sisodia in corruption cases

The Supreme Court of India on Friday granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia in the corruption and money laundering cases linked to the Delhi excise policy. Sisodia, who had been in custody for 17 months, was released on a personal bond of Rs 10 lakh with two sureties of the same amount. The court also ordered him to surrender his passport.

Delay in Trial Cited as Grounds for Bail

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a speedy trial, noting that Sisodia had been printed for 17 months without any progress in its trial. The court highlighted that such delays infringe upon the accused’s right to a speedy trial, a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. “Manish Sisodia is in custody for 17 months and trial has not yet begun; this deprives his right to speedy trial,” the court stated.

Violation of Fundamental Rights

The prolonged detention of Sisodia was seen by the court as a violation of his fundamental rights. The court noted that keeping an accused in jail for an extended period with the expectation of completing the trial violates his rights. “Keeping an accused in jail for long time in hope of completion of trial amounts to violation of fundamental rights of accused,” the Supreme Court noted.

Principle of ‘Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception’

The Supreme Court criticized lower courts for their cautious approach in granting bail. The court asserted that the principle of “bail as a rule, jail as an exception” must be upheld by trial courts and high courts. It emphasized that this principle should be recognized more consistently in the judicial process.

Rejection of Uniform Bail Conditions

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) sought uniform bail conditions similar to those applied to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. However, the Supreme Court rejected this request, stating that each case should be evaluated based on its own merits rather than applying blanket conditions.

Rejection of Trial Court Relegation

The Supreme Court also dismissed the suggestion that Sisodia should seek bail from the trial court, stating that doing so would be a “travesty of justice.” This decision underscored the court’s view that Sisodia’s case warranted immediate attention at the highest level.

No Evidence of Tampering Found

Advocate Rishikesh Kumar, representing Sisodia, argued that the prosecution had not provided evidence of tampering. He stated, “The court has said that if you have the evidence then there is no case of tampering. If you have kept him in jail for so long, it’s against the principles of bail.” The court dismissed the ED’s concerns about potential tampering, noting that the rule of bail should prevail, especially given the lengthy pre-trial detention. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Manish Sisodia marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battle surrounding the Delhi excise policy. As the case progresses, the court’s emphasis on the right to a speedy trial and the principle of “bail as a rule, jail as an exception” may have broader implications for other cases under stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) .