MANISH SISODIA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 14.05.2024
Pronounced on: 21.05.2024
+ BAIL APPLN. 1557/2024
MANISH SISODIA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocates with Mr. Vivek Jain, Mohd. Irshad, Mr. Rajat Bharadwaj, Mr. Karan Sharma, Mr. Rishkesh Kumar, Mr. Rajat Jain, Mr. Sadiq Noor, Mr. Mohit Siwach, Mr. Kaustubh Khanna, Mr. Shailesh Chauhan, Mr. Harsh Gautam, Mr. Kunal Raj & Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Advocates.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED & Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Ms. Abhipriya Rai, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Hithash Raja & Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocates.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1559/2024
MANISH SISODIA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocates with Mr. Vivek Jain, Mohd. Irshad, Mr. Rajat Bharadwaj, Mr. Karan Sharma, Mr. Rishkesh Kumar, Mr. Rajat Jain, Mr. Sadiq Noor, Mr. Mohit Siwach, Mr. Kaustubh Khanna, Mr. Shailesh Chauhan, Mr. Harsh Gautam, Mr. Kunal Raj & Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..…Respondent
Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP for CBI with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Adv. with I.O. SP Rajiv Kumar.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
INTRODUCTION 5
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 7
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT SH. MANISH SISODIA 10
Submissions qua the case registered by Central Bureau of
Investigation 10
Submissions qua the case filed by Directorate of Enforcement 14
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 17
Submissions on behalf of Directorate of Enforcement 17
Submissions on behalf Central Bureau of Investigation 22
ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT 25
DIRECTIONS OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2023: WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO BAIL ON SOLE GROUND OF DELAY IN TRIAL? 26
WHETHER THERE IS DELAY IN TRIAL, FOR THE REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO APPLICANT SH. MANISH SISODIA? 32
Applications preferred by the Applicant in CBI case before the Ld.
Trial Court 33
Applications preferred by the Applicant in E.D. case before the Ld. Trial Court 36
Whether the applicant or other accused persons can be held responsible for delay in initiation of trial due to their act of filing different applications before the learned Trial Court? 40
Applications unrelated to Section 207/208 of Cr.P.C. 46
Different ‘Players’ and ‘Factors’ Affecting the Speed of Trial 47
Observations Regarding All Accused Persons Acting in ‘Concert’ With Each Other To Delay Trial: Whether Reasonable and Justifiable? 48
Delay in commencement of trial cannot be attributed to the ED or CBI or Ld. Trial Court 49
Have the proceedings before the learned Trial Court proceeded at Snail’s pace? 52
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF REGULAR BAIL UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. & IN CASES INVOLVING ECONOMIC OFFENCES 56
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF BAIL UNDER
PMLA 58
THE CASE OF CBI AND E.D. & THE ROLE OF APPLICANT SH. MANISH SISODIA 61
Timeline of Events reflecting the Role of Applicant Sh. Manish
Sisodia 63
Association of the Applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia with co-accused Sh. Vijay Nair 71
Orchestration of Pre-Decided Emails by Sh. Manish Sisodia and Creation of Fake Public Opinion 73
Change of Draft Cabinet Note by Sh. Manish Sisodia to Hide
Opinion of Legal Experts 76
No Reasons to Justify Increase in Wholesale Profit Margin from
5% to 12% 78
Role of Applicant in Ensuring Allotment of L-1 License to M/s Indo Spirits 79
Creation of Uneven Level Playing Field 80
Destruction of Electronic Evidence by Sh. Manish Sisodia 81
Role of Applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia in Commission of Offence of Money Laundering under Section 3 of PMLA 82
To Sum Up: The Modus Operandi 86
WHETHER CASE FOR GRANT OF BAIL IS MADE OUT, ON MERITS? 89
WHETHER THE APPLICANT CAN BE GRANTED BAIL ON SOLE GROUND OF DELAY IN TRIAL, EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO GRANT OF BAIL ON MERITS? 94
CONCLUSION 99
Manufacturing Fake Public Opinion: Another Form of Corruption 99
Judicial Resolve Against Corruption while dealing with applications for bail when investigation is pending 102
The Decision 104

INTRODUCTION
1. This judgment shall govern disposal of BAIL APPLN. 1557/2024 filed by the applicant in case registered against him by Directorate of Enforcement (‘E.D.’) and BAIL APPLN. 1559/2024 filed by the applicant in case registered against him by Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’), since the same arise out of similar facts, the latter being the predicate offence and the former being a case registered on the basis of the predicate offence. The facts and the allegations to a large extent are therefore identical.
2. Since both bail applications are being decided by one common order, the brevity of the bail order had to be sacrificed.
3. The initial journey of the case began when a letter was issued on 20.07.2022 by Sh. Vinai Kumar Saxena, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, alleging irregularities in the framing and implementation of Delhi’s Excise Policy for the year 2021-22. Subsequent to this, Sh. Praveen Kumar Rai, Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, had directed an enquiry into the said matter, vide Office Memorandum dated 22.07.2022. Pursuant thereto, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case bearing no. RC0032022A0053 on 17.08.2022, for offences under Sections 120B read with 477A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’).
4. The Directorate of Enforcement entered the arena of investigation in this case, since the offences for which RC was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation were scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’). Thus, an ECIR bearing no. ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022 was recorded and investigation was initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement.
5. On 26.02.2023, the present applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and while he was in custody, he was also arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement on 09.03.2023 in the related offences under PMLA.
6. The regular bail application, preferred by Sh. Manish Sisodia, was dismissed by this Court on 30.05.2023, in the case arising out of RC registered by Central Bureau of Investigation. His bail application, preferred in the case arising out of ECIR registered by Directorate of Enforcement, was dismissed by this Court on 03.07.2023.
7. Thereafter, Sh. Manish Sisodia had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of filing Special Leave Petitions against the aforesaid orders, thereby seeking bail in both the cases. Vide a common judgment dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in case reported as Manish Sisodia v. CBI 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393, both the Special Leave Petitions preferred by Sh. Manish Sisodia were dismissed. In addition to this, Review Petition as well as Curative Petition filed by Sh. Manish Sisodia before the Hon’ble Apex Court also came to be dismissed.
8. However, while dismissing the applicant’s Special Leave Petitions seeking release on regular bail, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 30.10.2023, had also granted liberty to the applicant herein, to approach the learned Trial Court afresh for seeking grant of regular bail, by way of following observations:
“29. In view of the assurance given at the Bar on behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next six to eight months, we give liberty to the appellant – Manish Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in next three months. If any application for bail is filed in the above circumstances, the same would be considered by the trial court on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail application, including the present judgment. Observations made above, re.: right to speedy trial, will, however, be taken into consideration. The appellant – Manish Sisodia may also file an application for interim bail in case of ill health and medical emergency due to illness of his wife. Such application would be also examined on its own merits.”

9. In light of these observations, the applicant had again approached the learned Trial Court on 27.01.2024 by filing fresh bail applications in both the cases, wherein he had sought grant of regular bail primarily on the grounds of delay in trial. Both the applications were dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide orders dated 30.04.2024, resulting in the present bail applications.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
10. The case set out by the Central Bureau of Investigation, in brief, is that during the formulation of the Delhi’s Excise Policy of 2021-22, the accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy, thereby intentionally creating or leaving loopholes in the policy to be exploited later on. Substantial kickbacks were allegedly paid in advance to the public servants involved, in exchange for undue pecuniary benefits to the conspirators in the liquor trade. It is claimed that kickbacks totaling around Rs. 90-100 crores were paid in advance to Sh. Vijay Nair, Sh. Manish Sisodia, and other co-accused persons, by certain individuals in the South Indian liquor business (‘South Group’). These kickbacks were found to have been returned back to them subsequently out of the profit margins of wholesale distributors and also through the credit notes issued by them to the retail zone licensees related to the South liquor lobby. Furthermore, the criminal conspiracy allegedly resulted in the formation of a cartel among three components of the policy: liquor manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers.
11. After conducting investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation had filed first chargesheet against 07 accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 120B of IPC and Sections 7, 7A and 8 of PC Act before the learned Trial Court on 25.11.2022, cognizance of which was taken on 15.12.2022. Thereafter, further investigation was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, during which Sh. Manish Sisodia was also arrested on 26.02.2023. On 25.04.2023 and 08.07.2023, two supplementary chargesheets had also been filed before the learned Trial Court, against a total of 16 accused persons.
12. In addition to aforesaid, the Directorate of Enforcement alleges that the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 was crafted by top leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party, including the present applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia to continuously generate and channel illegal funds to themselves, with deliberate loopholes left in the policy to facilitate criminal activities. A key policy change was increasing the wholesale profit margin from 5% to 12%, with 6% intended as kickbacks. It is alleged that due to urgent financial needs, Sh. Manish Sisodia and other Aam Aadmi Party leaders had sought advance kickbacks, and thus, Sh. Vijay Nair was appointed as the mediator, who had proposed to Ms. K. Kavitha and other members of South Group to fund the party in exchange for profitable business opportunities. It is alleged that Sh. Manish Sisodia and other accused persons and members of the ruling party in Delhi had received Rs. 100 crores as advance kickbacks from the South Group through intermediaries. This had led to the formation of a special purpose vehicle, M/s Indo Spirits, where Ms. K. Kavitha and Sh. Raghav Magunta, through proxies Sh. Arun Pillai and Sh. Prem Rahul Manduri, held a 65% partnership. M/s Indo Spirits was used to launder money, employing methods like control of the firm, excess credit notes, and overdue outstanding payments to recoup kickbacks. As far as investigation qua trial of kickbacks is concerned, the Directorate of Enforcement claims part of these funds was used in AAP’s 2022 Goa Assembly election campaign, with Rs. 45 crores sent to Goa through hawala channels. As per the case of Directorate of Enforcement, the applicant is the key conspirator in this case, who was actively involved in generating, concealing, projecting as untainted, and using the proceeds of crime.
13. The first prosecution complaint was filed by the Directorate of Enforcement was on 26.11.2022 and the cognizance of the same was taken by the learned Trial Court on 20.12.2022. Thereafter, Directorate of Enforcement has also filed five supplementary prosecution complaints, the sixth supplementary prosecution complaint was filed during the pendency of the present applications against co-accused Sh. Kejriwal. The applicant herein i.e. Sh. Manish Sisodia was made an accused by way of fourth supplementary prosecution complaint filed on 04.05.2023.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT SH. MANISH SISODIA
Submissions qua the case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation
14. Learned Senior Counsel Sh. Mohit Mathur, appearing on behalf of the applicant argues that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Sisodia (supra) vide judgment dated 30.10.2023 had given liberty to the applicant to approach the learned Trial Court afresh for seeking regular bail, in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace. Considering the same, the applicant herein moved his second regular bail application dated 27.01.2024 before the learned Trial Court, however, the same came to be dismissed on 30.04.2024. Therefore, he states that the applicant is before this Court seeking grant of regular bail.
15. It is submitted by Sh. Mohit Mathur that the learned Trial Court in order dated 30.04.2024 has given a positive finding in para no. 44 that “since trial is yet to commence there is no change in circumstance”. It is submitted that despite the fact that the trial is yet to commence and there was clear direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court to grant bail to the present applicant if the trial proceeds at a snail’s pace, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the bail application preferred by the applicant. It is fervently argued that the learned Trial Court has ignored the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has incorrectly observed in the impugned order that the slow pace of proceedings before the Court is attributable to the applicant herein. This finding, Sh. Mathur states, is patently perverse. It is so because the learned Trial Court has observed this merely on the ground that the present applicant had moved 13 applications before the learned Trial Court and had thus caused delay in trial. It is submitted that while recording such observations, the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the applicant/accused had merely exercised his legal rights to seek different reliefs in accordance with law. Sh. Mathur further submits that in the present case, the Central Bureau of Investigation has filed thousands of documents in the course of its investigation for the last about 1½ years, which had various deficiencies and many a times, the documents which were supplied by the agency contained certain pages which were dim and not legible. It is stated that the applicant had moved certain applications to that effect, which were in fact allowed by the learned Trial Court. Thus, it is stated that the observations made by the learned Trial Court are totally incorrect since all the applications had been allowed by the learned Trial Court itself.
16. It is further submitted that one of the applications moved by the present applicant was seeking permission to meet his wife physically since his wife is suffering from various ailments and that the said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court by way of custody parole and thus, this application cannot be regarded as a delay tactic. Further, the other applications filed by the applicant have been erroneously termed as frivolous by the learned Trial Court to justify the rejection of grant of bail, however, the said applications were of such nature which are filed by an accused in the normal course of criminal trial, and it is a matter of fact that the present applicant has to approach the learned Trial Court for seeking such reliefs since he is in judicial custody and he has no other legal recourse available to him. It is argued that counting these applications as a factor for delay in trial is, on the face of it, incorrect, arbitrary, unfair, unjust and perverse.
17. Sh. Mathur also points out that the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 has used the word ‘acted in concert’ for all the accused persons. He submits that since several accused persons are still in judicial custody, such a finding would be highly erroneous, as the same, in a way, points fingers directly towards the defence counsels for the accused persons that they have conspired with each other to file various applications. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in returning a finding that the trial was delayed due to multiple applications filed by other co-accused persons, and even if such is the case, any delay caused by any co-accused person cannot be attributed to the present applicant.
18. It is also submitted that at the time when the judgment was delivered in case of Manish Sisodia (supra) by the Hon’ble Apex Court, i.e. on 30.10.2023, the CBI matter before the learned Trial Court was at the stage of scrutiny of documents under Sections 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C., and it was at the exact same stage when the second bail application was filed by the applicant before the learned Trial Court on 27.01.2024. It is also argued that the chargesheets in the present case were filed way back on 24.11.2022, 27.04.2023 and 08.07.2023, however, the CBI had failed to produce the list of un-relied documents as mandated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., until December, 2023. It is also pointed out that order dated 22.11.2023 of the learned Trial Court shows that even the chargesheets and documents were not paginated by respondent, which was ordered to be done by the Court.
19. Sh. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant further submits that even arguments on charge have not been concluded in the present case and the trial is, thus, yet to commence. It is submitted that the applicant cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period of time where further investigation is going on qua other accused persons also and the chargesheet against the present applicant stands filed a year back on 25.04.2023.
20. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail, keeping in mind the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manish Sisodia (supra).

Submissions qua the case filed by Directorate of Enforcement
21. Sh. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant argues that the applicant was arrested on 09.03.2023, and has been in judicial custody for more than 14 months. It is further argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia (supra) has confirmed that the applicant can seek regular bail in case the trial is not proceeding further, since speedy trial is a facet of Article 21 of Constitution, and the same must be read into both Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of PMLA; and where the trial would not be proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the Court would be justified in granting bail. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant herein had filed his second regular bail application before the learned Trial Court which was dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2024. Pursuant to that, the applicant is before this Court seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of ECIR bearing no. HIU-II/14/2022.
22. It is argued that by Sh. Dayan Krishnan that as mentioned in the judgment of Manish Sisodia (supra), the prosecuting agency i.e. the Directorate of Enforcement had tendered a categorical assurance to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the trial will be concluded within 6-8 months, from 30.10.2023, which has been blatantly breached by the agency. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid assurance, the investigation is still going on and it is admitted that as on date, the trial has not even commenced and the case is still at the stage of supply and scrutiny of documents under Sections 207/208 of Cr.P.C. It is further stated that it is clear from the conduct of the Directorate of Enforcement that the investigation is continuing till now, as recently Sh. Arvind Kejriwal was arrested on 21.03.2024 and one Sh. Chanpreet Singh on 16.04.2024, and even during the pendency of present applications, the Directorate of Enforcement has admitted that on 03.05.2024, they have arrested one Sh. Vinod Chauhan whose interrogation is still going on. Thus, it is submitted that the fact that the investigation is still going on is a clear breach of the assurance given to the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.10.2023, and this factor has not at all been considered by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order dated 30.04.2024.
23. Sh. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel vehemently argues that the observations of the learned Trial Court in para no. 76 to 79 of the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 that the applicant, by acting in concert with various co-accused persons, has been delaying the trial, are mere speculations and there is no basis or material on record to support such an incorrect conclusion. It is stated that the conduct of the applicant from the impugned order makes it abundantly clear that he was not acting to delay the proceedings. With regard to the tabulation of various applications filed by the accused persons including the applicant in the impugned order, Sh. Krishnan submits that the applications at serial no. 96 and 97 were admittedly filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed its judgment in Manish Sisodia (supra). The application under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. listed at serial no. 98 was also filed way back on 21.11.2023 and was subsequently allowed by the learned Trial Court. The entries at Serial No. 102 & 103 do not even pertain to the applications filed by the applicant, but two submissions made by the applicant on applications filed by the Directorate of Enforcement, including the belated applications to complete relied upon documents. Furthermore, the factors allegedly causing delay i.e. application for supply of hard copies of relied upon documents, cannot be attributed to the applicant since no such application was preferred by the present applicant.
24. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that in fact, it is the Directorate of Enforcement itself which has been delaying the trial. It is stated that in order dated 22.11.2023, the learned Trial Court in para 9 has categorically noted that the Directorate of Enforcement was attempting to introduce new documents in relied upon documents for earlier prosecution complaints, without the leave of the Court. Subsequently, on 06.12.2023, the Directorate of Enforcement had preferred an application seeking to place on record around 540 pages of documents which were relied upon in the main and four supplementary prosecution complaints but ironically, these documents, which should have been already filed, were not included in the relied upon documents along with those complaints. This application was filed by the Directorate of Enforcement more than a year after the filing of the first prosecution complaint dated 26.11.2022 and more than seven months after the fourth supplementary complaint dated 04.05.2023. Therefore, it is argued that the learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.04.2024 has incorrectly held that the delay was on the part of the applicant herein. It is argued that the learned Special Court has erred in considering all the applications of the accused persons to return a finding that the accused persons are delaying trial on one pretext or the other.
25. As regards the merits of the case, though it is argued that merits are not to be gone into at this stage by this Court, it is pointed out that the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the merits of the allegations already in the judgment dated 30.10.2023, which this Court may take into consideration.
26. Therefore, it is prayed that considering the fact that the trial in this case has not even begun, the applicant herein be enlarged on regular bail as per judgment dated 30.10.2023 passed in Manish Sisodia (supra).

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
Submissions on behalf of Directorate of Enforcement
27. Sh. Zoheb Hossain, learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement argues that the bail applications in PMLA cases are required to be decided in light of the mandatory twin conditions laid down in Section 45 of PMLA and until such conditions are fulfilled, bail cannot be granted. In this regard, it is submitted that the applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia is admittedly a former Minister in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and hence a highly influential individual, coupled with the fact that he is accused of commission of a grave economic offence and has potential to tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. It is also submitted that further investigation is going on to trace proceeds of crime and the role of various persons are still to be ascertained. It is further stated that in this case, huge amounts of proceeds of crime have been found to be laundered and investigation to trace the proceeds of crime is ongoing, and there exists a reasonable apprehension of crucial evidence being destroyed if the applicant is enlarged on bail. It is also stated that there is ample evidence on record to link Sh. Manish Sisodia to the commission of the offence of money laundering, and his release on bail would adversely affect further investigation to unearth the deep-rooted multi-layered conspiracy. It is further submitted that Directorate of Enforcement is taking all possible steps to conduct an effective and fair investigation, which would be hampered if the applicant is released on bail; especially in light of the nature of the case, severity of allegations and voluminous evidence on record.
28. It is further argued by Sh. Zoheb Hossain that the conspiracy in this case was to see that Aam Aadmi Party makes wrongful gains in the form of bribes given by persons who were favoured in the proposed New Excise Policy and in the said process it had been assured that the accused persons giving bribes would recoup as well as get additional benefits out of the New Excise Policy. It is further submitted that the applicant was actively involved in the formulation and implementation of the New Excise Policy that would enable the bribe giver to recoup/recover the bribe and make more money. It is argued that the opinion/report of the Expert Committee headed by Mr. Ravi Dhawan, the then Excise Commissioner, was only to create an impression of a false transparency since the recommendations of the expert committee were never implemented or even debated upon or discussed during the farcical meetings of the Delhi Government.
29. It is further argued that Sh. Manish Sisodia and his associates were involved in destruction of evidence to derail the investigation. The applicant herein had changed his phone on 22.07.2022, i.e. the day on which the complaint of Lt. Governor of Delhi, to the CBI, was covered in media/news. The role of present applicant is summarised by the Directorate of Enforcement as under:
(i) Rejected the expert committee recommendations on making a Govt. Corporation controlled wholesale entity.
(ii) Planted emails to give a facade of public suggestions/ approval to deviate from an expert report. “Decisions taken with right intent seldom need cover up, one only layers up facts when one has something to hide.”
(iii) Increased the wholesale profit margin from 5% to 12% without any rationale, discussion and due process of decision making.
(iv) Pressured Pernod Ricard to give its wholesale business to M/s Indo Spirits through Vijay Nair.
(v) Made sure M/s Indo Spirits was granted L1 wholesale license despite there being various complaints of cartelisation against Sh. Sameer Mahandru (one of the partners of M/s Indo Spirits) and the same were highlighted by the then Excise Commissioner Sh. Arava Gopi Krishna to Sh. Manish Sisodia.
(vi) Sh. Manish Sisodia directed Sh. Dinesh Arora to work with Sh. Vijay Nair in this Scam, following which Sh. Dinesh Arora coordinated the transfer of advance kickbacks of Rs.31 Crore from the South Group to Sh. Vijay Nair which then transferred and part of it was used in the election campaign of AAP in Goa through Rajesh Joshi.
(vii) Sh. Abhishek Boinpally transfers Rs.7.1 Crore bribe to the AAP leaders through Sh. Gautam Mootha for Goa elections.
(viii) Sh. Abhishek Boinpally transferred Rs. 25 Crore approx. bribe through Sh. Ashok Kaushik for Goa elections campaign of AAP.
(ix) Amit Arora paid Rs.2.2 Crores bribe to Sh. Manish Sisodia for making changes in the policy.
30. Learned Special Counsel further argues that the proceedings before the learned Trial Court have not proceeded at snail’s pace. The same is evident from the fact that till date, almost 100 applications have been filed by the accused persons under Section 207/208 of Cr.P.C and almost all the applications have been disposed of as on date. Despite the number of applications and the nature of the requests made, the Directorate of Enforcement has taken all necessary steps to comply with several requests with a view to expedite the trial. It is also argued that this progress has taken place despite concerted and consistent efforts of the accused persons to delay the trial. In this regard, it is further submitted that from 26.11.2022 (i.e. the date of filing the first prosecution complaint) till 30.10.2023 (i.e. date of Hon’ble Supreme Court order rejecting the bail of Sh. Manish Sisodia), only 40 applications were filed by the accused persons including Sh. Manish Sisodia. However, right after the bail was rejected and the applicant was given liberty to file bail again if the trial protracted, the number of applications filed by the accused persons increased to 130 in a period of six months. It is argued that most of these applications were repetitive, redundant and frivolous. It is further stated that almost all the accused persons requested for supply of hard copies of all relied upon documents/prosecution complaints on 21.11.2023 i.e. after the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 30.10.2023. This fact has also been noted by the learned Trial Court in its order dated 30.04.2024 while rejecting the bail application of Sh. Manish Sisodia.
31. Learned Special Counsel also submits that the applicant had also filed an application seeking CCTV footage of his interrogation during ED custody, on 20.01.2024 i.e. after a period of almost 11 months without explaining the reasons, which was to delay the trial.
32. Thus, keeping in view the role of Sh. Manish Sisodia in the present case and in view of the rigors of Section 45 PMLA, the Directorate of Enforcement opposes the bail application filed by Sh. Manish Sisodia and prays that the same be dismissed.

Submissions on behalf Central Bureau of Investigation
33. Sh. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation argues that the delay in the present case is on the part of the accused persons. It is stated that in compliance of provisions under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the soft and hard copies of all the relied upon documents, statement of witnesses and list of un-relied documents and statements relevant to the ongoing investigation were also submitted as well as supplied to the counsels of all the accused persons. It is further argued that the arguments on charge have already been initiated and CBI has already argued on two dates, after completion of the proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
34. It is stated that the accused persons including the applicant herein have tried to delay the proceedings by way of filing frivolous applications under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. However, CBI has complied with all the directions issued by the learned Trial Court on the applications of the accused persons, expeditiously, within the given time frame to expedite the trial in this case. It is argued that the accused persons are still trying to delay the trial by way of filing applications before the learned Trial Court and before this Court for staying hearing of arguments on charge, with sole intention to create grounds for Sh. Manish Sisodia to seek bail on the basis of delay in the trial.
35. Learned SPP for CBI further argues that Sh. Manish Sisodia has filed total 13 applications before the learned Trial Court after rejection of his bail application by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.10.2023. It has been claimed by Sh. Manish Sisodia that thousands of documents have been filed by CBI, however, during the proceedings under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., as per direction of the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.10.2023, the process of inspection of un-relied documents and un-relied statements of witnesses was to be concluded by the defence Counsels by 22.11.2023. However, the counsels of the accused persons did not complete the inspection of un-relied documents and un-relied statements of witnesses by the said date. In view of the same, the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 22.11.2023 directed them to complete the work of inspection by 22.12.2023. However, in compliance with the said order, the counsel for the applicant visited the CBI office for the purpose of inspection of un-relied documents and statements of the witnesses only for four days and that too for a few hours.
36. It is further argued that despite conducting the inspection of the un-relied documents, the accused persons, with the intention to delay the trial, again filed an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court on 22.12.2023, for supply of copies of the documents seized during the searches conducted by CBI at the premises of the accused petitioner; whereas copies of the search lists containing the details of such documents had already been provided to the accused persons on the date of the search itself.
37. Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI argues that the accused persons did not complete the inspection of un-relied documents by 22.12.2023 and filed applications for further extension of the time for conducting the inspection. On their request, the learned Trial Court further extended the time for inspection of un-relied documents till 19.01.2024. However, on 19.01.2024, the accused persons again filed fresh applications under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. for supply of some more documents/digital evidence, i.e., after lapse of more than six months of filing of the second supplementary chargesheet on 08.07.2023. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were further extended till 05.02.2024. Thus, it is argued that the accused persons including the applicant herein have delayed the proceedings under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. by taking three months time from 19.10.2023 to 19.01.2024 for inspection of un-relied documents despite repeated directions from learned Trial Court to conclude the same expeditiously.
38. It is argued on behalf of CBI that there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence against Sh. Manish Sisodia. It is further argued that the investigation has revealed that he is the main architect of the entire criminal conspiracy of tweaking and manipulating the formulation and implementation of the New Excise Policy. It is submitted that the investigation has also revealed that Sh. Manish Sisodia is also involved in the destruction of vital files related to the formulation of the New Excise Policy as well as his mobile phone on the day on which the matter was referred to CBI by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, for investigation i.e. 22.07.2022.
39. It is further argued that further investigation is at a very crucial stage on certain key aspects, including the involvement of other public servants and private persons as well as to ascertain all the beneficiaries of the bribe. If Sh. Manish Sisodia is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he will thwart the investigation herein, more specifically when he has failed to meet the ‘triple test’, as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. Therefore, it is prayed that the present bail application be dismissed.
40. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia by the learned Senior Counsels, as well as learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation and Directorate of Enforcement. The material placed on record by both the sides has also been perused and considered.

ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT
41. The issues which were raised during the course of arguments, and which arise for consideration for deciding this bail application, are as under:
i. Whether the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court entitles the present applicant to grant of bail, solely on the ground of delay of trial?
ii. Has there been a delay in this case attributable to Sh. Manish Sisodia?
iii. Is the applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia entitled to grant of bail in both the cases i.e. cases registered by CBI and E.D.?
DIRECTIONS OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2023: WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO BAIL ON SOLE GROUND OF DELAY IN TRIAL?
42. By virtue of judgment dated 30.10.2023, though the petitions filed by Sh. Manish Sisodia, seeking bail in both the cases, were dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, he was granted liberty to approach the learned Trial Court afresh for seeking bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in next three months, after taking into account the submission made by Directorate of Enforcement that the trial in this case shall be concluded within a period of six to eight months.
43. The bone of contention, between the learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, is the interpretation of paragraph no. 28, and more particularly, paragraph no. 29 of the judgment dated 30.10.2023 passed in Manish Sisodia (supra). For reference, these paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“28. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom, mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The allegations have to be established and proven. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This would be truer where the trial would take years.

29. In view of the assurance given at the Bar on behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next six to eight months, we give liberty to the appellant – Manish Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in next three months. If any application for bail is filed in the above circumstances, the same would be considered by the trial court on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail application, including the present judgment. Observations made above, re.: right to speedy trial, will, however, be taken into consideration. The appellant – Manish Sisodia may also file an application for interim bail in case of ill- health and medical emergency due to illness of his wife. Such application would be also examined on its own merits.”

44. Learned Senior Counsels for the applicants have insisted that the proceedings before the learned Trial Court in this case have moved at snail’s pace, and the cause for such delay is not attributable to the present applicant and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, especially the observations in para 28 and 29 which are unambiguous and clear, such delay in itself becomes a ground for grant of bail as no person can be incarcerated indefinitely without being pronounced guilty. They have also argued that the merits of the case have already been decided once by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the phrase ‘on merits’ as appearing in paragraph 29 would mean the merits of the fresh bail application only, which has been filed on the ground of delay in trial.
45. Learned Special Counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, on the other hand, insists that the reading of para 28, 29 and 30 cannot be meant to be holding that non-commencement of trial would in itself be the sole ground for bail or that bail can be asked for as a matter of right if the trial is not concluded in six to eight months. It is argued that the reading of paragraph 29 makes it clear that the liberty which was granted to the applicant was to file a fresh application, but the same is required to be decided by the Courts on the merits of the case, wherein one of the factors which can be taken into consideration is the delay in trial.
46. Therefore, the learned counsels appearing for both the parties have brought an issue before this Court, which concerns the interpretation of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
47. In this Court’s opinion, insofar as observations contained in paragraph 28 of judgment delivered in Manish Sisodia (supra) are concerned, the said paragraph contains general but crucial observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the perils of prolonged incarceration of an individual without trial. However, to resolve the controversy raised before this Court, paragraph 29 of the judgment can be understood in the following manner:
“ …(1) In view of the assurance given at the Bar on behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next six to eight months.
(2) we give liberty to the appellant – Manish Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail.
(i) in case of change in circumstances, or
(ii) in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in next three months.
(3) If any application for bail is filed in the above circumstances, the same would be considered by the trial court,
(a) on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail application, including the present judgment.
(b) Observations made above, re.: right to speedy trial, will, however, be taken into consideration. ”

48. Furthermore, it was also clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 30 of the judgment dated 30.10.2023 that the observations made in the said judgment, either way, were only for the disposal of those appeals, and those observations would not influence the Trial Court on the merits of the case, which would proceed in accordance with law, and be decided on the basis of the evidence led. It was further expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that all disputed factual and legal issues were left open.
49. After carefully considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that:
(i) Firstly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted only liberty to the present applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia to institute a fresh bail application before the learned Trial Court either in case of change in circumstances or if the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in the next three months.
(ii) Secondly, it was clearly expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that any such fresh bail application would be considered and decided by the learned Trial Court ‘on merits’, without being influenced by the dismissal of earlier bail applications including the ones dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(iii) Thirdly, it was also observed that the observations made in the judgment dated 30.10.2023, either way, were only for the purpose of disposal of those appeals.
(iv) And fourthly, it was directed that while considering the fresh bail applications, the learned Trial Court shall also take into account the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court qua the right to speedy trial.
50. In this Court’s opinion, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not curtail the right of the learned Trial Court or this Court, of hearing arguments on bail application filed by the applicant on merit. Neither does it confine this Court or Trial Court to decide the bail application solely by examination of cause of delay in concluding trial.
51. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also clearly mentioned in paragraph no. 29 and 30 of the judgment dated 30.10.2023 that the Courts hearing application for bail will not be influenced by the observations made in the previous orders of rejection of bail of Sh. Manish Sisodia.
52. In this Court’s opinion, this observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court leads to only one conclusion that the learned Trial Court or this Court in event of the applicant moving fresh bail application can, independently apply its mind to the facts of the case and decide the bail application on merit. Further, holding and accepting the arguments of learned Senior counsels for the applicant that this Court cannot go beyond the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is also meritless, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has clarified in the judgment that all the factual and legal issues are left open, and the Court which will be hearing bail application will not be influenced by the observations made in that judgment.
53. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court entitle the applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia to file a fresh bail application in case he feels that the trial has not expeditiously proceeded in this case. The adjudication of the bail application, therefore has to be on the basis of the merits of the case, with an additional consideration of delay in trial or the right of speedy trial.

WHETHER THERE IS DELAY IN TRIAL, FOR THE REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO APPLICANT SH. MANISH SISODIA?
54. In the case at hand, this Court notes that the learned Trial Court has observed in impugned orders dated 30.04.2024 that the applicant individually, and along with different accused persons, had filed multiple applications or made oral submissions frequently, out of which some were frivolous, and this too, was done on a piecemeal basis, and thus, it was apparent that there was a concerted effort of the accused persons in accomplishing their shared purpose i.e. causing delay in the matter. It was also observed that despite the apparent attempts to slow down the progress of the case, it could not be regarded as proceeding at “snail’s pace”.
55. After considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the opinion that it shall be crucial to first take note of the applications preferred by the applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia, which were either filed or disposed of, after the judgment dated 30.10.2023 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia (supra).
Applications preferred by the Applicant in CBI case before the Ld. Trial Court
S.NO.
DATE OF APPLICATION/ ORAL SUBMISSION
NATURE OF APPLICATIONS/ ORAL REQUESTS
WHETHER THE APPLICATION WAS ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT?
1.
10.11.2023
Seeking permission to meet his wife physically for five days in custody.
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 10.11.2023
2.
05.12.2023
Seeking permission to sign some affidavit and Vakalatnama
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.12.2023.
3.
22.12.2023
Application under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
The said application was disposed of by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.01.2024. However, the request in this application for supply of copies of the documents or articles which were seized by officers of CBI during the course of searches was rejected.
4.
22.12.2023
Application seeking permission to put his signatures on documents
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.12.2023.
5.
22.12.2023
Application seeking permission to sign a cheque
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.12.2023.
6.
27.01.2024
Application seeking custody parole to meet his ailing wife for two days on weekly basis
The said application was allowed on 05.02.2024 and the applicant was granted once a week custody parole to go to his home and meet his wife.
7.
08.02.2024
Application for grant of interim bail to attend the marriage of his niece for a period of 5 days
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 12.02.2024
8.
01.03.2024
Application seeking discharge of sureties furnished before the learned Trial Court in terms of order dated 12.02.2024.
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.03.2024
9.
01.03.2024
Application seeing modification in the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court.
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.03.2024 and the travel expenses to meet applicant’s wife in custody parole was modified to the extent that the expenses will be borne by the State.
10.
15.03.2024
Application on behalf of accused Manish Sisodia seeking preponement of hearing on his regular bail application
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.03.2024 and the matter was then listed on 18.03.2024 at 2 PM.
11.
26.03.2024
Application seeking preponement of date of hearing of the bail application filed on behalf of the accused Manish Sisodia.
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 27.03.2024 and the matter was then listed on 02.04.2024 at 2 PM.
12.
30.03.2024
Application seeking issuance of Production warrants of A-8, Manish Sisodia under Section 267 of Cr.P.C. during arguments on his bail application
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 01.04.2024.
13.
12.04.2024
Application for grant of interim bail for election campaigning by Manish Sisodia. (withdrawn on 20.04.2024)
The said application was withdrawn by the Applicant as the order in the regular bail application was reserved by the learned Trial Court.

Applications preferred by the Applicant in E.D. case before the Ld. Trial Court
S.NO.
DATE OF APPLICATION/ REQUEST
NATURE OF APPLICATIONS/ ORAL REQUESTS
WHETHER THE APPLICATIONS WERE ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT?
1.
19.07.2023
Application filed by the applicant for supply of missing documents and legible copies under Sections 207/208 of Cr.P.C.
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.08.2023
2.
12.10.2023
Application seeking supply of missing digital data/ pen drive/HD under Sections 207/208 of Cr.P.C.
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2023
3.
21.11.2023
Application seeking supply of missing/ legible copies of documents under Sections 207/208 of Cr.PC.
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.11.2023
4.
19.01.2024
Application for Inspection of Non-RUDs
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 07.03.2024
5.
20.01.2024
Application seeking CCTV footage of interrogation period.
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.01.2024
6.
27.01.2024
Application seeking custody parole
The said application was allowed vide order dated 05.02.2024 and the applicant was granted once a week custody parole to go to his home and meet his wife.
7.
08.02.2024
Application for grant of interim bail to attend the marriage of his niece for a period of 5 days.
The said application was allowed vide order dated 12.02.2024
8.
01.03.2024
Application seeking discharge of sureties furnished before the learned Trial Court in terms of order dated 12.02.2024.
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.03.2024
9.
01.03.2024
Application seeing modification in the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court.
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.03.2024 and the travel expenses to meet applicant’s wife in custody parole was modified to the extent that the expenses will be borne by the State.
10.
15.03.2024
Application on behalf of accused Manish Sisodia seeking preponement of hearing on his regular bail application

The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.03.2024 and the matter was then listed on 18.03.2024 at 2PM.
11.
26.03.2024
Application seeking preponement of date of hearing of the bail application filed on behalf of the accused Manish Sisodia.
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 27.03.2024 and the matter was then listed on 02.04.2024 at 2PM.
12.
30.03.2024
Application seeking issuance of Production warrants of A-8, Manish Sisodia under Section 267 CrPC during arguments on his bail application
The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 01.04.2024.
13.
12.04.2024
Application for grant of interim bail under Section 45 PMLA for election campaigning by Manish Sisodia. (withdrawn on 20.04.2024)
The said application was withdrawn by the Applicant as the order in the regular bail application was reserved by the learned Trial Court.

Whether the applicant or other accused persons can be held responsible for delay in initiation of trial due to their act of filing different applications before the learned Trial Court?
56. There is no dispute about the fact that the trial in this case is yet to commence, since the proceedings, which are to be mandatorily carried out under the law as per code of Criminal Procedure, are still underway as the accused persons have moved multiple individual applications related and unrelated to Sections 207/208 of Cr.P.C. i.e. for supply of relevant documents, which is continuing till today.
57. This Court notes that in a case of conspiracy which involves multiple accused persons, it is but natural that each accused, who may have a different advocate will have to be provided with a separate set of chargesheet and documents. This right, to be supplied with the relevant documents before the stage of framing of charge, is enshrined in Section 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C., which provide as under:
“207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents.
In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:-
(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of section 173;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of section 173:
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused :Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.”

208. Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other cases triable by Court of Session.
Where, in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it appears to the Magistrate issuing process under section 204 that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:
(i) the statements recorded under section 200 or section 202, of all persons examined by the Magistrate;
(ii) the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under section 161 or section 164;
(iii) any documents produced before the Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely:
Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such document is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.”

58. In the case of P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala (2020) 9 SCC 161, the provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. was held to be a part of right to fair trial. The relevant observations are under:
“21. Be that as it may, furnishing of documents to the accused under Section 207 of the 1973 Code is a facet of right of the accused to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution…”

59. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of In Re: To issue certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trial v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No. 1/2017 decided on 20.04.2021, has made the following observations with respect to the supply of relevant documents as well as supply of list of unrelied documents to an accused:
“This court is of the opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Section 207/208 Cr.P.C., the magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or objects/ documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. This is to ensure that in case the accused is of the view that such materials are necessary to be produced for a proper and just trial, she or he may seek appropriate orders, under the Cr.P.C. (Section 91 referred at footnote), for their production during the trial, in the interests of justice. It is directed accordingly; the draft rules have been accordingly modified.”

60. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the valuable right of an accused to access justice, and avail legal remedies available to him within the framework of the law especially when he is in judicial custody or even otherwise when he is facing criminal trial.
61. However, it is also important to ensure that the provisions of Sections 207/208 of Cr.P.C. and the necessary procedural law is not misused by an accused to stall the proceedings before a Court of law.
62. In the case at hand, this Court takes note of the fact that in one of the orders pertaining to the complaint instituted by the Directorate of Enforcement i.e. order dated 11.12.2023, it was recorded by the learned Trial Court that despite being served with the electronic devices containing the prosecution complaints and relied upon documents, the applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia was raising the issue of non-supply of these documents, at a belated stage. The relevant observations are as under:
“As per these applications, some DVDs/hard discs/pen drives and backup of the e-mail dumps etc. have not been supplied, though IO submits that contents of these electronic storage devices were included in the hard discs, which were earlier supplied to all the accused and which contained the contents of concerned prosecution complaints as well as relied upon documents filed in support thereof. It is strange that the issue of non supply of such DVDs/hard discs etc. was not raised by the above accused persons in their earlier applications and no reasonable justification is being furnished as to why these missing documents were not included in the earlier applications filed under the above provisions, when the issue of missing/ illegible pages of other documents was already raised.
Ld. SPP for ED states that there is no end to filing of such applications by the accused persons and without going into the question whether these documents were earlier supplied or not, they are ready to supply copies of above electronic devices again to the above two accused.”

63. In another order dated 19.01.2024, in the case filed by CBI, the learned Trial Court while dismissing an application filed by the applicant Sh. Manish Sisodia had observed as under:
“Arguments on the above application of A8 have been heard. A copy of the search list prepared during the course of search proceedings carried out at the residential as well as official premises of the said accused was admittedly supplied during the course of proceedings itself and there is no requirement of supplying copies of the documents or articles, which were seized during the said searches. Hence, the request contained in this application for supply of copies of the documents or articles which were seized by officers of CBI during the course of above searches is rejected. Though, the legality of above search proceedings has also been questioned by Ld. Counsel representing the said accused, but it will be a matter of trial only. With these observations, this application stands disposed off.”

64. The record in the case registered by CBI, including the order sheets of the learned Trial Court, further reveals the following facts:
(i) As per direction of the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.10.2023, the process of inspection of un-relied documents and un-relied statements of witnesses was to be concluded by the defence counsels by 22.11.2023. However, the counsels of the accused persons did not complete the inspection of un-relied documents and un-relied statements of witnesses by the said date.
(ii) In view of the same, the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 22.11.2023 had directed the defence counsels to conclude the inspections by 22.12.2023. In compliance with the said order, the counsel for the applicant visited the CBI office for the purpose of inspection of un-relied documents and statements of the witnesses only for four days and that too for a few hours, as per the case of CBI.
(iii) It is further noted that despite conducting the inspection of the un-relied documents, the accused persons including Sh. Manish Sisodia, had again filed an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court on 22.12.2023, for supply of copies of the documents seized during the searches conducted by CBI at the premises of the accused petitioner; whereas copies of the search lists containing the details of such documents had already been provided to the accused persons on the date of the search itself. Thus, the said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court
(iv) The accused persons did not conclude the inspection of un-relied documents by 22.12.2023, and had filed applications for further extension of the time for conducting the inspection. At their request, the learned Trial Court had further extended the time for inspection of un-relied documents till 19.01.2024.
(v) On 19.01.2024, however, the accused persons had again filed fresh applications under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. for supply of some more documents/digital evidence, i.e., after the lapse of more than six months of filing of the second supplementary chargesheet on 08.07.2023. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were further extended till 05.02.2024.
65. Thus, prima facie, the accused persons including the applicant herein have delayed the pre-charge proceedings under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. by taking three months time from 19.10.2023 to 19.01.2024 for inspection of un-relied documents despite repeated directions from learned Trial Court to co