Summary
The Supreme Court granted bail to a former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi in the CBI and ED cases over the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. About 17 months in custody with the trial not yet begun, 493 witnesses and voluminous documents, had denied him his Article 21 right to a speedy trial. The Court held that this right is read into Section 45 PMLA and Section 439 CrPC, rejected the objection that he had to restart at the trial court, and found the record did not show he caused the delay.
Issues
- Whether the appellant could renew his challenge to the High Court's bail order directly in the Supreme Court under the liberty reserved by its order of 4 June 2024, or had to approach the trial court afresh.
- Whether the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA barred bail where prolonged incarceration and delay in trial infringed the right to a speedy trial.
- Whether the appellant was responsible for the delay in the trial through applications for documents.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to bail in the CBI and ED cases.
Provisions considered
- Section 45, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002Relying on paragraph 28 of its first order in the appellant's case and on Ramkripal Meena, the Court held that the right to bail on delay coupled with long incarceration is read into Section 45; the courts below erred in refusing bail by applying the triple test while ignoring this. (¶¶ 23, 37, 38, 39, 44)
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Like Section 45 PMLA, read as including the right to bail where trial is delayed and incarceration is long, the constitutional mandate being the higher law. (¶¶ 28, 37, 44)
- Section 436A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Noted from the first order, following Vijay Madanlal Choudhary: the section applies to PMLA offences but does not mean that bail must be refused until the accused has served the period it specifies. (¶¶ 28, 29)
- Sections 207 and 208, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The appellant's applications, mostly for missing documents, legible copies and inspection of documents the prosecution did not rely on, were all allowed by the trial court, and none was shown to be frivolous; an accused is entitled to reasonable time to inspect documents, including unrelied documents, to secure a fair trial. (¶¶ 22, 46, 47)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaThe right to speedy trial and personal liberty were held sacrosanct; around 17 months of incarceration with the trial not commenced, and no prospect of early conclusion, deprived the appellant of these rights. (¶¶ 32, 34, 49, 50, 51, 54)
Held
- The liberty reserved by the order of 4 June 2024 to revive the prayer after the final complaint and charge-sheet were filed was liberty to renew the challenge in the Supreme Court. Relegating the appellant to the trial court and the High Court, which had already ruled, would be an empty formality and a game of 'snakes and ladders'; procedure is a handmaiden, not a mistress, of justice. The preliminary objection on maintainability was rejected. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 35)
- The first order of 30 October 2023 had to be read as a whole: its refusal of bail on merits did not displace its holding that the right to bail where trial is delayed and incarceration is long is read into Section 439 CrPC and Section 45 PMLA. The trial court and High Court could consider merits but erred in rejecting bail on the triple test without giving weight to that holding. (¶¶ 37, 39, 43, 44)
- The finding that the appellant delayed the trial was not supported by the record: he had filed only 13 applications in the CBI case and 14 in the ED case, all allowed, and no order holding any of them frivolous was shown. Given about 69,000 pages of documents, taking time to inspect them, including unrelied documents, was part of the right to a fair trial. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47)
- The prosecution's argument was self-contradictory: having assured the Court that investigation would conclude only by 3 July 2024, it could not blame the appellant because the trial had not concluded within the 6-8 months it had projected in October 2023. (¶ 48)
- With 493 witnesses and thousands of pages of documents besides over a lakh pages of digitised material, there was no possibility of the trial ending soon, and continued detention would make pre-trial incarceration punishment without trial. Reiterating Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, the Court held that bail is not withheld as punishment, that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that courts should not refuse bail merely to play safe. (¶¶ 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55)
- Concerns of flight, tampering and witness influence did not justify detention: the appellant had deep roots in society, the case rested mainly on documents already seized, and any risk of influencing witnesses could be met by stringent conditions. (¶¶ 56, 57)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court order of 21 May 2024 set aside; appellant released on bail in both the ED and CBI cases on a bond of Rs.10,00,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to surrendering his passport to the Special Court, reporting to the Investigating Officer every Monday and Thursday between 10 and 11 am, and not attempting to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.