Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Focus Should Be on Conviction, Not Just Prolonged Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Amandeep Singh in Delhi Liquor 'Scam'

25 October 2024 2:51 PM

By: sayum


In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India today granted bail to Amandeep Singh Dhall, businessman and director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, in the high-profile corruption case linked to the alleged Delhi liquor policy 'scam'. This case also involves several political figures, including AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Sanjay Singh, as well as BRS leader K. Kavitha. With this order, all accused in the liquor policy case have now secured bail.

The order was passed by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, who heard Dhall's appeal against the June 4, 2024, order of the Delhi High Court, which had denied him bail in the CBI case.

Supreme Court’s Observations: Prolonged Detention and Focus on Conviction

While considering the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that Dhall has been in custody for approximately 1.5 years and that the CBI plans to examine around 300 witnesses. Recognizing that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, the bench opined that Dhall’s continued detention would not serve any useful purpose. Justice Surya Kant further emphasized the need for the CBI to focus on securing convictions rather than prolonging custody, observing:

"Today, the message to hardened, white-collar criminals is that somehow either you remain inside, then get away, nothing will happen. Your conviction rate...you must concentrate on that. The quality of your witnesses needs to be focused on, instead of number."

Dhall’s bail plea was earlier rejected by the Delhi High Court on June 4, 2024. The High Court had cited the seriousness of the allegations, Dhall’s alleged involvement in bribing officials, and the potential risk of witness tampering as grounds for denying bail. According to the prosecution, Dhall’s father allegedly paid ₹5 crore to a Chartered Accountant to secure favorable treatment in the ongoing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate.

The High Court had relied on witness statements and documentary evidence, including WhatsApp messages and recovered documents, to justify the denial of bail. It observed:

“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, seriousness of the allegations and the evidence collected by the prosecution, and when charges are yet to be framed and evidence is yet to be recorded…this Court does not find any ground for grant of bail to the applicant, at this stage.”

The High Court further noted Dhall’s alleged involvement in issuing additional credit notes worth ₹4.97 crore, purportedly as part of a scheme to influence the Delhi Government’s liquor policy.

Bail Previously Granted in Money Laundering Case

Before this Supreme Court order, Dhall had already obtained bail in a related money laundering case on September 17, 2024, along with co-accused Amit Arora. However, Dhall was the last of the individuals accused in the liquor policy case to secure bail, as all other accused had obtained either regular or interim bail in various related proceedings.

 

 

With today’s order, the Supreme Court has underscored the importance of balancing custodial detention with the right to a fair trial, particularly in cases where the prosecution process may be lengthy due to a large number of witnesses. The decision also sends a message to investigative agencies to focus on strengthening their cases for conviction rather than relying on prolonged pre-trial detention.

Date of Decision: October 25, 2024

Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Latest Legal News