SC to ED on Sisodia trial: When do you see the end of the tunnel?

“Realistically you tell me, when do you see the end of the tunnel, considering that there are 493 witnesses,” Justice K V Viswanathan said.

The two-judge bench, presided by Justice B R Gavai, reserved its order in the matter.

While Sisodia has pointed to the delay in the commencement of the trial to seek bail, the ED has contended that he was causing the delay by filing one application after another.

On Tuesday, the court pointed to an “incongruency” in the ED’s submissions, saying that while it held Sisodia responsible, it had also sought further time in June to file its chargesheet/ prosecution complaint. “Last chargesheet comes on June 28… then you say you are in the process of filing the supplementary chargesheet. It means that even you felt (that) unless all chargesheets were filed… trial can’t (start)… Now, to say that you could have proceeded and they delayed… some incongruency is there,” Justice Viswanathan observed.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju, who represented the ED, said the judgment of the Supreme Court Bench presided by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, on Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest, was in the agency’s favour. They “have accepted that merits have been dealt with by Justice Khanna. They pleaded and submitted before courts that the matter has to be heard only on delay,” he said.

He said the chargesheet was filed on May 4 last year and cognisance was taken. The trial could have proceeded, irrespective of whether there was a further investigation or not, Raju said, adding that while Sisodia did not file any discharge application, he kept filing other irrelevant applications.

The bench pointed out that most of these applications were allowed by the trial court, and asked the ASG to show any order where the trial court had said the applications were frivolous or intended to delay or take advantage.

Appearing for Sisodia, Senior Advocate A M Singhvi termed the prosecution’s arguments as “sham” and “completely prejudicial”. He said Sisodia had already spent 17 months in custody, which was almost half of the minimum possible sentence.

Singhvi said the court had said pre-trial detention should not become a punishment. He said delay must be one of the factors in deciding bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as the right to liberty under Article 21 is higher than anything else.

Raju said in terms of Section 226 of the CrPC, the prosecution would open its case by describing the charge brought against the accused and the trial can then proceed on a day-to-day basis.

Singhvi, however, asked how that could be done without even framing the charges. “My learned friend is suggesting that trial will go on day to day… without framing of charge of 40 accused? Why? Because it is important to keep this one person in jail? We have to be real,” he said.