Facts of the case

On the basis of a letter addressed by Shri Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, alleging irregularities in the framing and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy for the year 2021–22, the Ministry of Home Affairs directed an enquiry into the matter through an Office Memorandum. Following the enquiry, the appellant, Manish Sisodia, was first arrested by the CBI and later by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The CBI filed a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 7, 7A, 8, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sections 420, 201, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The ED, upon completion of its investigation, filed a complaint under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The High Court rejected the appellant’s first bail applications in both the CBI and ED cases. Subsequently, the appellant filed a second bail application before the trial court, where he was initially granted interim protection. However, the trial court ultimately rejected the bail application, citing no change in circumstances.

Issues

Whether right to bail can be provided under section 45 of PMLA?

Important referred Judgements:

1. In Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement, where a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan relaxed the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA and granted bail to the petitioner-accused citing long period of custody and the likelihood of trial not being concluded in a short span of time. The petitioner was accused of leaking and distributing question papers of the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021 (REET), for a payment of Rs.1.20 crores.

Ratio

Right To Bail Should Be Read Into S.45 PMLA When Accused Has Spent Long Time In Custody & There's Delay In Tria

Judgement

The Supreme Court observed that there was "not even the remotest possibility of trial being completed in the near future," considering the presence of 495 witnesses and voluminous documentary evidence. It held that continued incarceration of the appellant, in the mere hope of an early trial, would result in a serious violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.

The Court noted that the appellant has "deep roots in society," indicating no flight risk, and that the evidence is primarily documentary in nature, already collected during investigation. Regarding concerns of witness intimidation, the Court held that appropriate conditions could be imposed to prevent such risks.