New Delhi, August 9, 2024 — In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has issued a stern critique of the High Courts and Trial Courts over their handling of bail matters. The criticism came during the judgment on Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement [SLP(Criminal) No. 8781 with 8772 of 2024, cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024 INSC 595], delivered on August 9, 2024. The Apex Court criticized the lower judiciary for their tendency to deny bail as a default position, asserting that bail should be the rule rather than the exception.

The Supreme Court granted bail to Manish Sisodia, the former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi and a prominent leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), in a high-profile case involving allegations of corruption linked to the Delhi excise policy. Sisodia had been accused of manipulating the excise policy to benefit certain liquor sellers in return for bribes used to finance AAP’s electoral campaigns in Goa.

The Bench, consisting of Hon’ble Justice BR Gavai and Hon’ble Justice KV Viswanathan, expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which bail applications were handled by both the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court. The High Court had rejected Sisodia’s third set of bail applications earlier this year, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts appeared to be "playing it safe" by routinely denying bail. The Court underscored that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," and criticized the procedural delays that had effectively kept Sisodia in custody without a timely trial.

The Supreme Court's decision marks a significant shift in the approach towards bail. The Court observed that relegating Sisodia back to the Trial Court and then to the High Court would be akin to "playing a game of snake and ladder," which the Court deemed a travesty of justice. The judgment highlighted that the trial’s completion was unlikely within a reasonable timeframe, and keeping Sisodia in custody would infringe upon his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Court also noted that Sisodia had deep social roots and was unlikely to flee, and that there was no risk of evidence tampering as all relevant documents had been seized.

The case against Sisodia involves allegations that Delhi government officials, including Sisodia, tweaked the excise policy to favor certain liquor vendors in exchange for bribes. These bribes were allegedly used to support AAP’s election campaign in Goa. Sisodia had previously filed multiple bail pleas, all of which had been denied by the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court.

The judgment authored by Hon’ble Justice BR Gavai begins by affirming the granting of leave and addressing the appeals on their merits. The Bench noted that the appeals were challenging the Delhi High Court’s order of May 21, 2024, which had rejected Sisodia’s bail applications. The Court acknowledged that both the CBI and ED cases were based on similar facts, with the ED case serving as the predicate offence for the CBI investigation.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is expected to have significant implications for the judicial handling of bail applications. By criticizing the lower courts’ default denial of bail and emphasizing the need to balance procedural rigor with individual liberties, the Court has reinforced the principle that bail should generally be granted, especially in cases where prolonged detention could violate fundamental rights.

This ruling underscores the need for a more progressive approach to bail, ensuring that justice is not only served but also perceived to be served fairly and promptly.