Excise policy case: Delhi HC reserves order on Amandeep Dhall's bail plea

The plea is related to an investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with the excise policy case linked to money laundering. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, after hearing arguments from both sides, reserved the order on Amandeep Dhall's bail plea.

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing Amandeep Dhall, argued on the grounds of parity, stating that individuals like Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, and Vijay Nair, involved in the same case, have been granted bail by the Supreme Court. Krishnan highlighted that the trial is expected to be lengthy and that Dhall, along with the other accused, has already been in custody for several months.

Advocate Vivek Gurnani, representing the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), opposed Amandeep Dhall's bail plea. He argued that Dhall is accused of specifically influencing witnesses and attempting to bribe and affect the investigation while in custody.

Gurnani highlighted that there is substantial digital evidence and witness statements supporting these allegations. He contended that the delay in the trial is attributable to Dhall's actions, which distinguish his case from those of other individuals granted bail.

On June 4, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Amandeep Dhall in connection with the CBI case related to the excise policy. The court cited the seriousness of the allegations, the evidence gathered by the prosecution, and the fact that charges are yet to be framed and evidence recorded.

The court also noted that an FIR had been registered against Dhall for allegedly paying a bribe to an ED officer to have his name removed from the case. Given these factors, the court found no grounds to grant bail at that stage.

Currently, Amandeep Dhall's bail plea in the CBI case is under examination by the Supreme Court. Dhall was arrested on March 1, 2023, by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The ED alleged that Dhall, along with others, was involved in the formulation of the liquor policy and in facilitating kickbacks to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and its recoupment by the South Group.

Both the ED and the CBI have claimed that there were irregularities in modifying the excise policy, including undue favours to licence holders, waivers or reductions of licence fees, and extensions of the L-1 licence without proper approval. It is alleged that the beneficiaries diverted "illegal" gains to the accused officials and falsified their accounts to evade detection. (ANI)