The Delhi High Court denied bail to Manish Sisodia, the former Deputy Chief Minister. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that the Petitioner's case had failed to satisfy the triple test due to the seriousness of the allegations against him and his influential position.
Brief Facts:
Following the communication from the Honourable Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the Union Home Secretary, a First Information Report was filed under section 120-B read with 477A IPC and substantive offences against petitioner Sh. Manish Sisodia and others. The FIR, filed by CBI, alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy of the Government of NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “GNCTD”) of Delhi for the Year 2021-22.
The FIR further alleged that certain L-1 licence holders were issuing credit notes to retail vendors with the intention of diverting funds as an undue pecuniary advantage to public servants. False entries were allegedly made in their books of accounts to maintain a façade. Additionally, the FIR implicated Sh. Amit Arora, Director of M/s Buddy Retail Pvt Limited, Shri Dinesh Arora, and Shri Arjun Pandey as close associates of Sh. Manish Sisodia was involved in managing and diverting undue pecuniary advantage collected from liquor licensees to accused public servants. It was revealed that an amount of one crore was transferred by Sh. Sameer Mahendru to M/s Radha Industries, managed by Shri Dinesh Arora.
The FIR further alleged that Sh. Arun Ramchandra Pillai collected undue pecuniary advantage from Sh. Sameer Mahendru on behalf of Sh. Vijay Nair for onward transmission to accused public servants. Another individual named Arjun Pandey had collected a significant cash amount from Shri Sameer Mahendru on behalf of Shri Vijay Nair.
It was also alleged that M/s Mahadev Liquors, a proprietorship firm, was granted an L-1 Licence, and Sh. Sunny Marwah, the authorised signatory of the firm, had close contact with accused public servants, regularly providing them with undue pecuniary advantage. The CBI alleged that the petitioner, Sh. Manish Sisodia was the mastermind and architect of the aforementioned conspiracy.
A Bail application was preferred by the Petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was stated that the Petitioner was arrested on 26.02.2023 and has remained in custody since then. It was argued that the CBI's interpretation of the old policy is flawed and contradicted by their own documents.
It was argued that the CBI's claim that the profit margin under the old policy was only 5% is incorrect. It was emphasised that there was no cap on the profit margin under the old policy and that the illegal activities, including cartelization and selling non-duty paid liquor, were addressed in the new policy by separating wholesalers, manufacturers, and retailers and capping the profit margins at 12%.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was stated that the party in power in Delhi, in which the Applicant played an important role as the Minister of Excise, conspired to amend the Excise Policy to extract money through kickbacks. The old policy did not provide such an opportunity. It was claimed that the policy was changed under the pretext of bringing transparency, but it was actually motivated by a criminal conspiracy.
It was argued that the new policy, implemented by the Applicant and other accused persons, introduced significant changes, such as the privatisation of the wholesale model, an increase in the wholesale profit margin from 5% to 12%, and the zone-wise auctioning of retail licences.
Observations of the Court:
It was opined that the law regarding the granting of bail had been firmly established. The importance of an individual's liberty was considered sacred and connected to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was widely recognized that the general rule is to grant bail rather than imprison. It was also firmly established that during the bail stage, the Courts were not obligated to meticulously examine the facts or assess the credibility of the witnesses. The Court only needed to assess whether a prima facie case existed.
The criteria for granting bail was expounded by the Court, which is the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment, as well as the nature of the supporting evidence, the reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or threats to the complainant, and the court's prima facie satisfaction in support of the charges.
Consequently, the Bench noted that it was firmly established that when considering a bail application, the courts needed to consider certain factors, such as the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the seriousness of the allegations, the accused's position and status, the likelihood of the accused fleeing or repeating the offence, the potential for witness tampering and obstruction of justice, as well as the accused's criminal background. The court was not required to delve deeply into the merits of the case while deciding on a bail application. It was sufficient to establish the existence of a prima facie case based on the available records.
The Delhi High Court held that the Petitioner’s case failed to satisfy the triple test due to the seriousness of the allegations and their influential position.
The decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court based on aforementioned findings, dismissed the bail petition.
Case Title: Manish Sisodia v Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No.: Bail Application 1097 of 2023,
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr.Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vivek Jain, Mr. Mohd. Irshad, Mr. Mohit Siwach, Mr. Karan Sharma, Mr. Mohit Bhardwaj, Mr. Harsh Gautam, Ms. Sheenu, Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Mr. Rohit Kaliyar, Mr. Mohit Bharadwaj, Mr. Sumit Mishra, Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Mr. Deepak Goyal, Mr. Rajat Jain and Mr. Aditya Raj
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. S. V. Raju with Mr. Anupam S Sharma, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Ankit Bhatia, Mr. PrakarshAiran, Mr. Vivek Gurnani
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
