On Friday, the Supreme Court is set to deliver its verdict on the bail applications filed by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in connection with the Delhi excise case, which is under investigation by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan will announce their decision at 10:30 a.m. on whether Sisodia is eligible for bail, following his arrest in February 2023. The trials in both the CBI and ED cases have yet to commence, despite the significant time that has passed.
The agencies contended that the petition was not appropriate as Sisodia should have first approached the trial court. The order was reserved on Tuesday.
This marks Sisodia’s third attempt to secure bail from the Supreme Court. Last October 30, the Court denied his bail but allowed for the possibility of reopening the plea if the trial did not progress within six to eight months.
With the trial yet to start within that timeframe, Sisodia sought bail citing delays, but his plea was rejected by the Delhi High Court on May 21. He approached the Supreme Court in June, after the ED indicated it would file its complaint by July 3, which the Court took note of without addressing the merits of the petition. Sisodia’s latest plea was filed last month, challenging the high court’s May 21 order.
After extensive arguments by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Sisodia and additional solicitor general SV Raju for the agencies, the bench expressed doubts about the trial concluding promptly. The CBI has listed 493 witnesses and 57 accused, while the ED case involves 224 witnesses and 40 accused. Raju argued that the trial is at a critical phase and concerns were raised about the influence on witnesses, with some becoming approvers and facing threats.
Singhvi contended that the delays infringe upon Sisodia’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, asserting that the prolonged process violates personal liberty. While the investigating agencies attributed the delay to Sisodia’s and other accused’s frivolous applications, the Court questioned this claim, noting that the October 30 decision aimed at delaying the trial without faulting either the accused or the prosecution.
