Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024)

Introduction 

This case involves the second bail application filed by Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister and Excise Minister of Delhi, in a money laundering case related to alleged irregularities in Delhi's excise policy for 2021-22. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) based on a predicate CBI case concerning criminal conspiracy in the formulation and implementation of the excise policy.

Facts of the Case  

• Manish Sisodia, the former Deputy Chief Minister and Excise Minister of Delhi, was arrested on March 9, 2023, and has remained in judicial custody since March 22, 2023, in connection with a money laundering case related to alleged irregularities in Delhi's excise policy for 2021-22.  
• The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) based on a predicate CBI case (FIR No.RC 0032022A0053 dated August 17, 2023) concerning criminal conspiracy in the formulation and implementation of the excise policy. 
• Sisodia faces serious charges including criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). 
• The prosecution has alleged that Sisodia was a key conspirator who created deliberate loopholes in the excise policy for later exploitation, facilitated advance kickbacks of approximately Rs. 90-100 crores to AAP politicians, arbitrarily increased wholesale profit margins from 5% to 12% without proper justification, pressured companies to grant wholesale licenses to preferred entities, and used the proceeds to fund AAP's election campaigns in Goa. 
• His legal journey has been marked by repeated unsuccessful bail attempts. The first bail application was dismissed by the trial court on April 28, 2023, followed by the Delhi High Court's dismissal on July 3, 2023. The Supreme Court dismissed two criminal appeals on October 30, 2023, but granted liberty to file a fresh bail application in case of delays, and his subsequent curative petition was also dismissed.  
• This second bail application was filed on multiple grounds including delay-based bail arguments, interpretation of Supreme Court directions, humanitarian considerations due to his wife's Multiple Sclerosis condition, and parity with co-accused who had received bail. 

Issues Raised  

• Whether prolonged pre-trial detention without commencement of trial constitutes grounds for bail under PMLA Section 45 
• Whether delays in proceedings were attributable to the accused or the prosecution 
• Scope of liberty granted by Supreme Court for fresh bail application 
• Whether serious illness of applicant's wife warranted interim bail 
• Whether bail should be granted based on similar relief granted to co-accused 

Court’s Observations 

• The court found that Sisodia himself was responsible for delays in the case proceedings. The judge noted that Sisodia filed 13 different applications after the Supreme Court's October 2023 order. 
• The court counted a total of 135 applications and requests made by all accused persons in this case. The judge observed that many of these applications were filed on the same issues by different accused persons, which appeared to be a planned strategy to slow down the case.  
• The court stated that Sisodia's claim that the case was moving very slowly was not correct, and that any delays were caused by the accused persons themselves, not by the prosecution or the court. 
• The court explained that the Supreme Court's earlier order did not mean that Sisodia automatically deserved bail. The Supreme Court had only said that if there were unreasonable delays not caused by the accused, then a fresh bail application could be considered.  
• Since the court found that Sisodia caused the delays himself, this ground for bail was not valid. The court also noted that the strict conditions for bail under the money laundering law (Section 45 of PMLA) still applied and were not satisfied in this case. 
• Sisodia had argued that he should get bail because his wife suffers from Multiple Sclerosis and needs his care. The court examined this request but found that his wife's medical condition, while serious, was stable and had been ongoing for 23 years.  
• The court noted that Sisodia has a son who can take care of his wife, and there was no immediate medical emergency that required Sisodia's presence. Therefore, this was not sufficient ground to grant bail. 
• Sisodia's lawyers argued that since another accused person (Benoy Babu) got bail, he should also get bail. The court rejected this argument, explaining that each person's role in the alleged crime was different, and Sisodia's case could not be compared directly with others. The court also pointed out that unlike others, Sisodia had contributed to delays in the proceedings. 
• The court dismissed both the regular bail application and the request for temporary bail. The judge concluded that there were no new circumstances that would justify granting bail, the trial had not yet started and was still in the preliminary stage, Sisodia had contributed to delays in the case, the legal requirements for bail in money laundering cases were not met, and there was no urgent humanitarian need that required immediate bail.