The Supreme Court on Friday will pronounce a decision on the bail pleas filed by former.
Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise police case, probed separately by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED).
A bench of justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan will be delivering the verdict at 10.30am on whether Sisodia is entitled to be released on bail, more than 16 months after his arrest in February 2023, at a time when the trial in both the CBI and ED cases is yet to begin.
The agencies had argued that the petition was not maintainable as Sisodia was required to first approach the trial court. The order was reserved on Tuesday.
This is the third time Sisodia has approached the top court for bail. Last year, on October 30, the top court refused to grant him bail but kept a window open by allowing him to revive his bail plea if the trial fails to conclude in the next six to eight months or proceeds at a snail’s pace.
As the trial failed to begin in six months, Sisodia sought bail on the grounds of delay, but the Delhi high court rejected his plea on May 21. He approached the top court in June when ED told a vacation bench that it would be filing its complaint (or charge sheet) by July 3. Recording this submission, the court refused to go into the merits of the petition. Last month, Sisodia filed his third plea for bail, taking a second shot against the high court order of May 21.
After hearing elaborate arguments by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sisodia, and additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju for the investigating agencies, the bench raised serious doubts over the possibility of the trial ending soon.
CBI had listed 493 witnesses and 57 accused, while the ED case had 224 witnesses and 40 accused. Raju submitted that the trial was at a crucial stage and nearly eight to 10 witnesses, who are working under the Delhi government, could be influenced as they have turned approvers, and recorded statements against the accused, following which they have allegedly been threatened by some of the accused.
Singhvi told the court that in matters of personal liberty, courts have weighed in favour of individual freedom, and by delaying the trial, the petitioner’s right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution stood violated. While the investigation agencies claimed that the delay was due to frivolous applications filed by Sisodia and other accused, the court had its doubts over such a claim as the October 30 decision only intended delay in trial without attributing it either by the accused or the prosecution.