Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court in its order granting bail to Delhi AAP Minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi Excise Policy Case said that the high court and the trial court tried to play it safe.

"From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach," the order reads. 

A division bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan while pronouncing the order said that Sisodia cannot be held responsible for delaying trial and has been deprived of his right to speedy trial.

Sisodia has approached Supreme Court against the May 21 decision of Delhi High Court denying him bail after concluding that Sisodia had gravely misused his authority and breached public trust.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the corruption in question originated from Sisodia's intention to create the liquor policy. The court asserted that he manipulated the policy formulation process and deviated from the recommendations of the expert committee he had set up.

In December 2023, a division bench of the Supreme Court had also dismissed the review petition filed by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Sisodia challenging the court's earlier order denying him bail in the Delhi excise policy scam case. 

The Supreme Court further said that it is high time that the high court recognises the principle of bail is the rule and jail is an exception.

"On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception," the order reads.

The Supreme Court said that it would not ask Sisodia to approach trail court again as it would be a game of snake and ladder

"Now, relegating the appellant to again approach the trial court and thereafter the High Court and only thereafter this Court, in our view, would be making him play a game of “Snake and Ladder”. The trial court and the High Court have already taken a view and in our view relegating the appellant again to the trial court and the High Court would be an empty formality. In a matter pertaining to the life and liberty of a citizen which is one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by the Constitution, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post," the order reads.