Supreme Court reserves Manish Sisodia's bail verdict, questions trial pace in excise case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on bail plea filed by former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy case.

Both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) have filed charge sheets against the AAP leader for his alleged involvement in the case.

Before reserving its verdict, a division bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan verbally questioned the counsel appearing for probe agencies, as to how long would it take for the trial to conclude the Delhi excise case.


"Given that there are 493 witnesses in the case, realistically speaking when do you see the end of the tunnel," the bench verbally questioned the central government's counsel.

The bench also cornered the central government counsel over the "incongruency" in central government's counsel claim that the commencement of the trial is getting delayed because of unwarranted applications filed by Sisodia.

The bench questioned the counsel over the fact that the ED on June 4 had sought time from the court till July 3 to collate data and file a final prosecution complaint (equivalent of a chargesheet).

"This means even you felt unless all charge sheets were filed, we cannot start... now to say that you could have proceeded and they (accused) delayed... there is some incongruency," the bench verbally remarked.

The counsel for the Centre contended that around eight witnesses in the case were allegedly influenced by the accused in the case but they (witnesses) stuck to their guns.

During yesterday's hearing, the SC had verbally questioned: "This has been a raging issue. At this stage of bail, where do you draw the line between policy and criminality? How do you per se infer criminality (in a policy decision)."

The SC on Monday had also questioned the agencies on whether allegations that the Delhi excise policy of 2021-22 involved increased profit margins for liquor sellers was enough to indicate that a crime was committed by Sisodia.

The bench had orally remarked that if mere increase in profit as a consequence of a policy decision is indicative of criminality, then cabinets might not be able to discharge their functions.