CourtKutchehry

Case Summary: Manish Sisodia vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (2023)

Case Stats

Field	Details
Name of the Court	Supreme Court of India
Case No.	Criminal Appeal No. 3352 of 2023
Citation(s)	(2023) 10 SC CK 0051
Date of Decision	30 October 2023
Bench	Division Bench
Coram	Sanjiv Khanna, J.; S.V.N. Bhatti, J.
Parties	Appellant: Manish Sisodia \| Respondent: Central Bureau Of Investigation
Advocates (select)	Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Vivek Jain, Mohd. Irshad, Rajat Jain, Amit Bhandari, Karan Sharma, Suchitra Kumbhat, Abhinav Jain, Honey Kumbhat, Rishikesh Kumar, Mohit Siwach, Rishabh Sharma, Siddhanth Sahay, S.V. Raju, Zoheb Hussain, Arkaj Kumar, et al.

All Citations of the Case

Primary: (2023) 10 SC CK 0051.

[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2369405-manish-sisodia-vs-central-bureau?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=

Facts of the Case

The case arises from investigations by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22. Manish Sisodia, former Deputy CM of Delhi, was accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, IPC, and the PMLA for alleged irregularities, kickbacks of ₹100 crores, and money laundering. He sought bail citing prolonged custody, voluminous charge-sheets, absence of trial commencement, and lack of direct evidence linking him to proceeds of crime.

Law Points Raised / Issues

• Scope of constitutional protection under Articles 74(2) & 163(3) regarding Council of Ministers’ decisions.

• Interpretation of Section 3 PMLA — whether attempt/generation of proceeds constitutes 'assistance' or 'possession'.

• Whether prosecution under PMLA requires separate proof of laundering distinct from scheduled offence.

• Whether Sisodia can be prosecuted under PMLA if alleged prime accused (juristic person) is not arraigned.

• Whether Sections 45 & 50 PMLA violate constitutional protections under Article 20.

• Delay in trial and right to liberty under Article 21 vis-à-vis large number of witnesses and documents.

Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred

Constitution of India: Articles 20, 21, 74(2), 163(3).
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sections 7, 7A, 8, 12.
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 107, 108, 120, 120B, 201, 420.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: Sections 2(1)(s), 2(u), 3, 4, 19, 45, 50, 50(2), 50(3), 70.
CrPC, 1973: Sections 161, 164, 306, 436A, 439, 482.

Judgments Referred

• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 — interpretation of PMLA provisions.

• Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (1975) 3 SCC 742 — evidentiary value of approver testimony.

• Other references to constitutional precedents on forced confessions and right to fair trial.

Obiter Dicta (Notable Observations)

Rule of law ensures equal application of law, fair treatment, and safeguards against arbitrary power. Bail jurisprudence must balance presumption of innocence with seriousness of allegations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court emphasized that bail decisions must consider liberty under Article 21 and trial delays, but in economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies, grant of bail requires careful scrutiny of evidence, the gravity of allegations, and potential impact on the trial.

Final Ruling / Directions

The Court disposed of the appeal, declining to grant bail at this stage. However, it recognized the right to a speedy trial, leaving open the possibility of reconsideration if delays persist. The case underscores stricter bail norms in corruption and money laundering cases.

Relevant Paragraph / Reference Pointers

• Para 2-3: Rule of law principles outlined.

• Para 4-5: Charges by CBI & ED; legal issues framed.

• Para 6 onwards: Appellant’s submissions on custody, evidence, and trial delays.

One-Paragraph Summary (Bottom)

The Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia v. CBI (2023) addressed bail in the Delhi Excise Policy case. While recognizing Articles 20 & 21 protections and trial delay concerns, the Court stressed the gravity of economic offences under PoC Act and PMLA. Bail was denied at present, but liberty to renew was preserved. The case reaffirms constitutional principles of rule of law, accountability of ministers, and stricter standards in corruption cases.