The Unusual Reasoning Behind the Supreme Court’s Decision to Refuse Bail for Manish Sisodia

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) poses a significant challenge by mandating the Court to conduct a preliminary review of the evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused. In the case of Manish Sisodia, despite disproving many charges from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) at a prima facie level, the Court refused him bail. This decision was based on the gains observed by certain private liquor wholesale distributors due to alterations in the excise policy. Surprisingly, no evidence suggested kickbacks or loss to the public exchequer.

Moreover, the Court found no specific allegation tying Sisodia to the purported transfer of Rs 45 crores out of Rs 100 crores for the AAP’s Goa elections. As the AAP wasn’t accused, the Court held Sisodia couldn’t be held vicariously liable. Additionally, the Court dismissed ED’s claim of a Rs. 2.20 crores bribe to Sisodia, as it wasn’t present in the CBI’s final report on the primary offense.

While it might seem like Sisodia was being granted bail, the judgment took an unexpected turn. The Court acknowledged the CBI’s allegation that the excess 7% commission earned by wholesale distributors constituted an offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, regarding bribery of a public servant. It also considered the ED’s claim that Rs. 338 crores were “proceeds of crime.”

However, the Court didn’t critically examine these assertions to determine if a prima facie case existed to deny bail. Instead, it merely stated that these claims were tentatively supported by material and evidence.

Post denying bail, the Court made observations regarding personal liberty, acknowledging Sisodia’s prolonged incarceration. It granted him the liberty to reapply for bail after three months if the trial progressed slowly. Given the country’s history of criminal prosecution and lacking explicit directives from the court, expecting substantial trial progression within three months seems unrealistic due to the extensive evidence and numerous witnesses involved.

The primary concern among law students isn’t solely about Sisodia’s bail denial or approval. Granting bail falls within the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction. However, the concern arises from the discretion used to deny bail lacking a coherent discussion based on facts, the establishment of a prima facie case, and an evaluation of evidence. When the Court’s discussion itself indicates a dearth of evidence for a possible conviction, whether this judgment sets a reliable precedent for future bail decisions across the country perplexes every law student.