The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concern over the tendency of High Courts and trial courts to routinely deny bail in criminal cases, emphasizing that bail should be the rule and jail the exception.
Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan made this observation while granting bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy case. Sisodia’s earlier bail pleas had been rejected by both the trial court and the Delhi High Court, leading him to appeal to the Supreme Court once more.
“The High Court and trial court are playing it safe in matters of bail. Bail cannot be denied as a matter of punishment… It is high time the courts realize that bail is a rule and jail is an exception,” the Supreme Court remarked while granting Sisodia bail.
This issue was also highlighted by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud in a speech in March this year, where he noted a concerning trend in district courts regarding personal liberty. CJI Chandrachud had remarked, “There is a rising apprehension that there is restraint in district courts in matters concerning personal liberty. ‘Bail is the rule’ is losing ground in district courts, and this trend needs thorough evaluation.”
The case against Sisodia involves allegations that Delhi government officials manipulated the excise policy to benefit certain liquor vendors in exchange for bribes, which were allegedly used to fund the AAP’s election campaign in Goa. The case is being investigated by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
This was Sisodia’s third attempt to secure bail, following previous rejections by the Supreme Court based on assurances that a chargesheet would soon be filed. After the chargesheet was submitted, Sisodia again approached the Supreme Court. The Court stated that sending Sisodia back to the trial court to seek bail would be like “playing a game of snake and ladder” and would constitute a “travesty of justice.”
The Supreme Court granted Sisodia bail, concluding that the trial is unlikely to be completed soon. The Court noted that keeping him in custody would violate Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal
