Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: 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