Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Supreme Court Denies Bail to Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in Corruption and Money Laundering Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 30 October 2023, the Supreme Court of India has denied bail to former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia, in a highly significant corruption and money laundering case. The decision comes following an exhaustive examination of Sisodia's bail application, which involved a thorough analysis of various legal issues and allegations.

Sisodia's plea for bail revolved around allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. These charges were brought against him based on two chargesheets filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and a criminal complaint lodged by the Directorate of Enforcement.

The case raised complex legal questions, including constitutional protection under Articles 74 and 163, the interpretation of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and the conditions for prosecution under the PML Act.

One of the primary allegations against Sisodia pertained to a conspiracy related to a new excise policy, with accusations of kickbacks totaling an astounding Rs. 100 Crores, purportedly used in election campaigns. Additionally, claims of money laundering have been made in connection with these allegations.

The court conducted an extensive examination of the evidence, including statements from co-accused and other witnesses, documentary evidence, and contradictions therein. The case involved an alleged involvement of middlemen and Sisodia's purported influence in the granting of a wholesale license to Indo Spirit.

Sisodia's defense vehemently denied the allegations, pointing to a lack of concrete evidence linking him to the alleged crimes. He consistently maintained that he had no involvement in the illicit transactions and activities in question.

Counter-arguments presented by the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement reiterated claims of conspiracy, evidence showing the money trail, and allegations of evidence destruction by Sisodia. Concerns were raised about his potential influence over ongoing investigations and the trial.

One of the significant challenges in this case is the anticipation of a lengthy trial due to the voluminous evidence and numerous legal issues raised. Despite the gravity of the charges, the court expressed concerns over prolonged incarceration, emphasizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In the judgment, the court delved into the interpretation of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, emphasizing that bail applications are not meant to determine guilt but to assess broad probabilities. The court's role is to make a tentative finding based on available evidence without prejudicing the merits of the case during the trial.

The judgment also scrutinized the allegation of a bribe payment of Rs. 2,20,00,000 to Sisodia, which was not included in the CBI's chargesheet, making it challenging to regard as 'proceeds of crime' under the PML Act.

Despite these legal complexities, the court's decision to deny bail underscores the seriousness of the charges and the need to secure the accused's presence for trial. However, the court has provided the liberty to Manish Sisodia to seek bail afresh in case of changed circumstances or protracted trial, reflecting its commitment to upholding constitutional mandates while ensuring law enforcement.

The appeals have been dismissed with a clarifying note that the observations made in the judgment are for the disposal purposes of the present appeals and are not intended to influence the trial court's proceedings on the merits of the case. This ensures adherence to legal protocols and a fair evaluation of evidence in the subsequent trial.

The case has garnered significant attention due to its political implications and the involvement of a prominent figure like Manish Sisodia. It is expected that the legal proceedings will continue to be closely watched as the trial progresses.

Date of Decision: October 30, 2023

MANISH SISODIA VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

 

Similar News