The Indian Supreme Court has rejected the bail application of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi Excise Policy case
article/cities/delhi/supreme- court-dismisses-manish- sisodia-bail-plea-delhi- excise-policy-scam-case- 9005466/
I have no connection with Sisodia or his party, but I respectfully submit that the decision was wrong, and he should have been granted bail.
The celebrated Justice Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v Balchand, 1977, that bail not jail is the normal rule, except where there are circumstances suggestive of the accused fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like.
This principle has been followed by the Supreme Court ever since.
roundup/contentsummary.aspx? iid=29329#:~:text=Recently%2C% 20the%20Hon’ble%20Apex,is% 20yet%20to%20be%20proved.
The Court should have granted bail to Sisodia with some conditions that he will not abscond or tamper with the evidence or threaten witnesses.
Unfortunately tens of thousands of people in India have been languishing in overcrowded jails, as pointed out by Her Excellency the President of India Draupadi Murmu, when they should have been released on bail following the by now well settled principle that bail not jail is the normal rule.
There are many persons who should have been released on bail a long time back following the above principle, but are still in jail, e.g. Umar Khalid, Sanjiv Bhatt, Bhima Koregaon accused, etc. Many are journalists who were only doing their duty
It is time now that the Supreme Court revisits their cases