Manish Sisodia Vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court rejected the bail application of Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, who has been alleged to have committed various offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Facts- Vide the two appeals, the appellant – Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, seeks bail in the prosecutions arising from matter registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Enforcement Case Information Report filed by the Directorate of Enforcement, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Notably, CBI has filed two chargesheets, wherein the appellant – Manish Sisodia is named and is facing trial for the offences u/s. 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of the PoC Act and Sections 120B, 201 and 420 of the IPC. DoE has filed a criminal complaint against the appellant – Manish Sisodia for the offences u/s. 3 and 4 of the PML Act.
A number of legal issues and questions were raised like whether on the interpretation of Section 3 of the PML Act, ‘the act/process of generation’ or ‘the attempt to generate the proceeds of crime’ falls within the ambit of the expressions ‘assist’, ‘acquisition’, ‘possession’ or ‘use’ u/s. 3 of the PML Act? If the answer is in affirmative, what are the legal consequences as per the Constitution of India, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the IPC, and the General Clauses Act, 1897?
Conclusion- Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and the case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious.
In view of the assurance given at the Bar on behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within the next six to eight months, the court gives liberty to the appellant – Manish Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in next three months.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Rule of law means that laws apply equally to all citizens and institutions, including the State. Rule of law requires an equal right to access to justice for the marginalised. The rule also mandates objective and fair treatment to all. Thirdly, rule of law is a check on arbitrary use of powers. It secures legitimate exercise of power for public good.
3. This is precisely the reason why we had heard arguments at some length in these two appeals filed by the appellant – Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, who seeks bail in the prosecutions arising from RC No. 0032022A00553, dated 08.2022, registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation1, at CBI, ACB, New Delhi, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19882and the Indian Penal Code, 18603; and Enforcement Case Information Report4 No. HIU-II/14/2022, dated 22.08.2022, filed by the Directorate of Enforcement5, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 20026.
4. CBI has filed two chargesheets, dated 24.11.2022 and 25.04.2023, wherein the appellant – Manish Sisodia is named and is facing trial for the offences under Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of the PoC Act and Sections 120B, 201 and 420 of the IPC. DoE has filed a criminal complaint dated 04.05.2023 against the appellant – Manish Sisodia for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act.
5. A number of legal issues and questions were raised, and do arise, for consideration, but we would refrain from delving into them in depth and detail. However, there is a bounded discussion in the subsequent portion of the judgment only for deciding the present appeals and the question as to whether the appellant – Manish Sisodia is entitled to bail. Nevertheless, for the purpose of record, we will delineate some of them:
(a) What is the scope and ambit of the constitutional protection under Articles 74 and 163 of the Constitution of India on the decisions taken by the Council of Ministers?
(b) Whether on interpretation of Section 3 of the PML Act, ‘the act/process of generation’ or ‘the attempt to generate the proceeds of crime’ falls within the ambit of the expressions ‘assist’, ‘acquisition’, ‘possession’ or ‘use’ under Section 3 of the PML Act? If the answer is in affirmative, what are the legal consequences as per the Constitution of India, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19737, the IPC, and the General Clauses Act, 1897?
(c) Whether a person can be prosecuted under the PML Act only when there is material to show that he has indulged or assisted in any activity/process of money laundering, albeit an activity/process different and separate from the scheduled offence?
(d) Whether an accused, who allegedly has committed the scheduled offence, can be prosecuted under the PML Act, when the alleged prime accused and the beneficiary of the proceeds of crime, a juristic person, is not arrayed as an accused in the criminal complaint filed by the DoE?
(e) Whether Sections 45 and 50 of the PML Act should be read down in view of the constitutional scheme and mandate of Article 20 of the Constitution of India?
6. On behalf of the appellant – Manish Sisodia, the following submissions have been made:
