Dowry Case | In the absence of specific allegations, mere naming of distant relatives cannot justify prosecution: MP High Court Non-Commencement of Activities Alone Not a Ground for Refusal: Calcutta High Court at Calcutta Affirms Trust Registration, Stating Granting Shifting Permissions is a Quasi-Judicial Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Disciplinary Charges Against MCA Official Jurisdiction Does Not Preclude Transfer to Competent Family Courts: Rules Kerala High Court Madras High Court Acquits Two, Reduces Sentence of Main Accused: Single Injury Does Not Prove Intent to Murder Financial Creditors Retain Right to Pursue Personal Guarantors Post-Resolution Plan: Punjab & Haryana High Court Proper Notice and Enquiry are the Bedrock of Just Administrative Actions: Rajasthan High Court Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Discharge Order in Madan Tamang Murder Case, Orders Trial for Bimal Gurung Review Cannot be Treated Like an Appeal in Disguise: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tax Review Petition Delhi High Court Orders Interest Payment on Delayed Tax Refunds: ‘Refund Delays Cannot Be Justified by Legal Issues’” Freedom of Press Does Not Exempt Legal Consequences: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Journalists in Jail Sting Operation Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right”: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Rejection of SEZ Plot Allotment Indefeasible Right to Bail Arises When Investigation Exceeds Statutory Period: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Extension Orders in NDPS Case Higher Qualifications Can't Override Prescribed Standards, But Service Deserves Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court A Mere Breach of Promise Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 406 IPC: Rajasthan High Court Madras High Court Overturns Order Denying IDA Increments, Citing Unfair Settlement Exclusion No Premeditated Intention to Kill: Kerala High Court Reduces Murder Convictions in Football Clash Case Landlord Need Not Be Owner to Seek Eviction: Court Upholds Broad Definition of Landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Delhi High Court Sets Aside Status Quo on Property, Initiates Contempt Proceedings for False Pleadings and Suppression of Facts Calcutta High Court Rules Deceased Driver Qualifies as Third Party, Overrides Policy Limitations for Just Compensation A Litigant Who Pollutes the Stream of Justice Is Not Entitled to Any Relief: Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Suppression of Evidence Punjab and Haryana High Court Awards Compensation in Illegal Termination Case, Affirms Forest Department as an 'Industry' Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Madras High Court Acquits Man in Double Murder Case Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Loan Repayment Dispute: Manifestly Attended with Mala Fide Intentions Systematic Instruction Essential for ‘Education’ Tax Exemption: Delhi High Court Intent to Deceive Constitutes Forgery: High Court of Calcutta Dismisses Quashing Petition in Fraudulent Property Inclusion Case

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

Similar News