Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC Residential Exemption Personal to Judgment Debtor, Doesn't Extend to Legal Heirs: Supreme Court Failure to Invoke Statutory Remedies Under Income Tax Rules Bars Legal Heirs From Challenging Auction Sales: Supreme Court Once Documents Are Held Irrelevant, Oral Evidence Regarding Their Contents Cannot Be Led: Supreme Court MACT | Legal Representatives Entitled To Parental Consortium Even If Adult: Supreme Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Mere Execution Of Agreement To Sell Between Landlord And Tenant Does Not Determine Subsisting Tenancy Unless Express Or Implied Surrender Is Established: Supreme Court Central Excise Act | Extended Limitation Period Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Both Parties: Supreme Court Sole Eyewitness Testimony Of Relative Sufficient For Conviction If Credible: Supreme Court Medical Evidence Disproves Homicide And Points To Accidental Drowning: Supreme Court Acquits Accused In Friend's Death Creditor Not Bound To Exhaust Remedies Against Principal Debtor First; Guarantor's Liability Is Co-Extensive: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FRRO Exit Order Against Taiwanese Student With Valid Visa, Directs Registration Appellate Courts Must Decide Matters on Merits Instead of Remanding for Frame of Issues: Supreme Court Mere Possession Of Counterfeit Notes Not Sufficient Under Section 489C IPC Unless Mens Rea & Knowledge Are Established: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Nomination For Asian Games, Holds Selection Trials Cannot Override Statutory Benchmarks Pending Criminal Cases Cannot Be Sole Ground To Deny Premature Release If Convict Qualifies Under Guidelines In Vogue At Conviction Date: Karnataka High Court Government Cannot Keep Detenu's Representation Pending Awaiting Advisory Board's Decision: Kerala High Court Sets Aside KAAPA Order 'Reinstatement With Full Back Wages Not Automatic': Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Compensation For Daily Wager's Procedurally Flawed Termination

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