MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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