Excise policy case: 7 things Supreme Court said in Manish Sisodia's bail order
The bench noted that Sisodia had been in custody for approximately 17 months with no commencement of the trial, which amounted to a deprivation of his right to a speedy trial.
 )
FollowThe Supreme Court on Friday (August 9) granted bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. After 17 months of being jailed, Sisodia is set to be released following the Court's decision. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan issued the bail order, overturning both the trial court's and Delhi High Court’s decisions that had attributed the trial delays to Sisodia.
The Supreme Court found that keeping Sisodia in custody for an indefinite period violated his right to a speedy trial.
Supreme Court grants bail to AAP leader Manish Sisodia with conditions to surrender passport
The top court's decision was influenced by several key observations:
1. The bench noted that Sisodia had been in custody for approximately 17 months with no commencement of the trial, which amounted to a deprivation of his right to a speedy trial.
2. The Court stressed that the prolonged detention without trial was a denial of Sisodia's fundamental rights. The trial court and High Court should have given due consideration to this aspect.
3. The Court highlighted that Sisodia has deep roots in society and there was no substantial risk of him fleeing. It was determined that conditions could be imposed to mitigate any potential concerns.
4. The Supreme Court condemned the lower courts for failing to consider the injustice of prolonged detention without trial. The Court stated that relegating Sisodia back to the trial court for bail would be a ‘travesty of justice.’
5. The bench observed that most of the evidence in the case was documentary and already in possession of the ED and CBI, reducing concerns about tampering.
Mukesh Ambani's Reliance lays off 42,000 staff in FY24; Netizens quip 'salary spent on wedding'
6. The Court stressed that keeping Sisodia behind bars for an indefinite period would deny his fundamental rights. The Court acknowledged that Sisodia’s societal ties and lack of fleeing risk justified granting bail.
7. The Supreme Court noted that it would be unfair to subject Sisodia to continued incarceration when the trial had not yet started. The delays in the trial process warranted the Court’s intervention.
subscribe to Asianet Newsable WhatsApp channel by clicking here.For more reliable and latest news
subscribe to Asianet Newsable Telegram channel by clicking here.
