New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a plea filed by senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia seeking relaxation of the bail condition requiring him to report to the Investigating Officer semi-weekly.
A bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai decided to delete the bail condition requiring Sisodia to report to the Investigating Officer every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m.
“We do not find the said condition is necessary and the same is therefore deleted. However, it is directed that the applicant (Sisodia) shall regularly attend the trial court,” ordered Justice Gavai-led Bench.
Earlier on Monday, the Bench, also comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan, agreed to list the plea moved by Sisodia after senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned it. “Day after tomorrow,” it had told Singhvi, who sought an urgent hearing on Sisodia’s plea seeking relaxation of the bail condition requiring him to report to the Investigating Officer every Monday and Thursday.
In August this year, the Supreme Court granted bail to the senior AAP leader, saying that he cannot be kept behind bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of a speedy completion of trial in the alleged excise policy case.
Pronouncing the verdict on Sisodia’s bail pleas, a Bench presided over by Justice Gavai had said: “In the present case, in ED as well as CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named and the case involves thousands of pages of documents and over lakh pages of digitised documents.” “It is thus clear that there is not even a remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of the trial would deprive him of the Fundamental Right of Liberty given under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The Bench, also comprising Justice Viswanathan, held that on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial not having commenced, Sisodia had been deprived of his right to a speedy trial. Rejecting the contention that Sisodia, if granted bail, may tamper with the evidence, the Supreme Court had said that the prosecution case majorly stems from documentary evidence, which has already been seized by the CBI and the ED.