Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday rejected bail application of AAP Leader Manish Sisodia in the CBI case in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy scam. 

Court observed, "The allegations are very serious...the gravity and allegations do not entitle the accused to be admitted to bail".

Court took cognizance of the fact that since the party of the applicant is in power and the primary witnesses involved are public servants, there is a potential case of influencing the witnesses thereby hampering the due process of law.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, while dismissing the bail application, observed, “… since there are serious allegations of the misconduct against the petitioner, the petitioner being an influential person and having held the position of Deputy Chief Minister having 18 portfolios and the witnesses are mostly public servants, there is a possibility of the witnesses being influenced cannot be ruled out. Thus, the petitioner fails the triple test in the view of the seriousness of the allegations and his position. Though the petitioner has resigned from the post of Minister, but still his position is influential qua the witnesses.”

On the role of elected government taking policy decisions, Court said that where such decisions suffer from malafides, interference by Courts and investigative authorities is warranted and permissible. Court said,

“This court has no doubt in its mind that it is for the executive /elected government to decide the policies. There is also no doubt that the Government is not bound to accept the recommendation of any expert committee report. The government is answerable to the public at large and they are duty bound to frame the policies which to their understanding is best for the welfare of the public. The economic policies framed by the government also fall within their domain and the courts have to be very slow in interfering into the same. However, the court cannot interfere into the same, only if such policy decisions have been taken bonafidely and in the interest of the public. But if such policy decisions or schemes are alleged to have been taken malafidely or have the taint of any corrupt practice then certainly such decisions are required to be enquired into by concerned investigating agencies and examined by the court.”

Reliance was inter-alia placed on State of Orissa v. Mahimanand Mishra, 2018 pen SCC 516 and Anil Kumar Yadav v. GNCTD, (2018) 12 SCC 129 with respect to the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.

Brief Background

Sisodia’s bail plea in the CBI case was dismissed by Special Judge MK Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi on March 31. While rejecting the bail plea, the court had stated that Sisodia played "the most important and vital role" in the criminal conspiracy, and he had been "deeply involved" in the formulation and implementation of the said policy. The court had reserved orders in the case on March 24.

Earlier, on February 28, a CJI DY Chandrachud-led bench of the Supreme Court dismissed former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia's plea challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in an alleged case of corruption relating to liquor excise policy. The bench also comprising Justice PS Narasimha had held that "other efficacious remedies were available" to Sisodia.

It is CBI's case that there were alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy for the year 2021-22.  On February 26, the CBI commenced a second round of questioning after Sisodia was earlier questioned on October 17 last year. Chargesheet in the matter was filed on November 25, 2022.

The Delhi High Court reserved order in the case on May 11, 2023.

Case Title: Manish Sisodia v. CBI | Bail Application no. 1097 of 2023