The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on August 9, 2024, granted bail to Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, in both the Enforcement Directorate (PMLA) and Central Bureau of Investigation (Prevention of Corruption Act) cases arising from the Delhi excise policy matter. A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held that continued incarceration without commencement of trial, extending beyond seventeen months, violated the accused's fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background
Manish Sisodia was arrested by the CBI on February 26, 2023 in connection with alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The ED subsequently arrested him on March 9, 2023 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The prosecution's case centred on allegations that the excise policy was designed to favour certain liquor licensees in exchange for kickbacks, and that the proceeds were laundered through a network of entities.
Sisodia's bail applications were rejected by the trial court and the Delhi High Court. The High Court, in its order denying bail, had noted the serious nature of the allegations and the existence of prima facie evidence. At the time the Supreme Court heard the matter, Sisodia had been in custody for approximately seventeen months, the charge sheet had been filed, but the trial had not commenced and no timeline for its conclusion was foreseeable.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court addressed the tension between the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA and the constitutional right to personal liberty:
Article 21 primacy: The Court held that the right to speedy trial is a facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Prolonged incarceration as an undertrial, without any realistic prospect of trial conclusion, is constitutionally impermissible regardless of the gravity of the offence alleged.
Section 45 PMLA twin conditions satisfied: The Bench found that the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA — that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail — were satisfied. The Court observed that the prolonged period of incarceration, the accused's status as a public figure with deep roots in the community, and the absence of any allegation of evidence tampering during custody weighed in favour of bail.
No trial timeline: The Court noted that with over 400 witnesses cited by the prosecution and the trial not having commenced, the prospect of the case concluding within any reasonable timeframe was remote. Continued custody in these circumstances transformed pre-trial detention into punitive incarceration.
Parity with co-accused: The Court took note of the fact that several co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail by various courts, and that continued detention of Sisodia on the same set of facts raised concerns about equal treatment.
Bail conditions: The Court imposed conditions including surrender of passport, a personal bond, and a restriction on making any public comments regarding the merits of the case.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment reinforces the evolving line of Supreme Court authority that places constitutional limits on pre-trial detention even in PMLA cases, where the statutory framework tilts heavily against bail. Defence practitioners in PMLA matters should note the Court's emphasis on the absence of a trial timeline as a decisive factor — this provides a concrete, measurable benchmark for bail applications in cases involving prolonged incarceration.
The decision should be read alongside the Supreme Court's recent trend of scrutinising the duration of undertrial custody with greater rigour, particularly in economic offence cases where investigations tend to be protracted and charge sheets voluminous. Practitioners representing accused persons in long-pending PMLA and corruption matters should build their bail applications around the Article 21 framework articulated here, demonstrating the gap between the period of custody and any realistic trial completion date.
For the prosecution, the judgment underscores that filing charge sheets without commencing trials expeditiously creates a constitutional vulnerability in the custody framework.