Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Serious Allegations and Evidence Preclude Bail: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court on June 4, 2024, dismissed the bail application of Amandeep Singh Dhall, implicated in a high-profile excise policy corruption case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the plea citing the serious nature of the allegations and substantial evidence of Dhall's involvement in the conspiracy. The case involves a criminal conspiracy related to Delhi’s Excise Policy for 2021-22, allegedly resulting in substantial kickbacks and financial irregularities.

Amandeep Singh Dhall, the petitioner, is embroiled in a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for offences under Section 120B read with Section 447A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case, initiated on August 17, 2022, revolves around alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of Delhi's Excise Policy for 2021-22. The CBI alleges that substantial kickbacks, totaling around Rs. 90-100 crores, were paid to public servants for undue benefits to certain liquor traders.

The court addressed allegations of undue delay in deciding the bail application, highlighting that much of the delay was due to numerous interim applications filed by the petitioner. Justice Sharma clarified that the court had promptly addressed interim reliefs, including medical treatments for Dhall, and thus, the delay could not be attributed to the court’s inefficiency.

The court emphasized the principles governing the grant of bail, particularly in economic offences, referencing several Supreme Court judgments. Justice Sharma noted that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and significant public funds should be viewed seriously.

The investigation revealed Dhall’s close association with co-accused Vijay Nair and his role in arranging meetings with liquor manufacturers and stakeholders. Evidence indicated that Dhall was instrumental in the conspiracy, issuing additional credit notes worth Rs. 4.97 crores to various retailers without authorization from manufacturers, thereby generating illicit funds for bribes.

During searches at Dhall’s premises, CBI recovered confidential documents related to the excise policy, which further implicated Dhall in the conspiracy. The possession of these documents was prima facie evidence of his involvement in manipulating the policy for financial gain.

Justice Sharma remarked, "The role of the applicant herein, discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs of the judgment, clearly outlines how he was instrumental and part of the conspiracy since its inception."

The Delhi High Court's decision to deny bail to Amandeep Singh Dhall underscores the judiciary's stance on serious economic offences involving public funds. The court’s emphasis on the gravity of the allegations and the strong evidence presented against Dhall reflects a stringent approach towards maintaining integrity in public administration. The dismissal of the bail application signals a robust judicial response to corruption and malpractice in public policy formulation.

 

Date of Decision: June 4, 2024

Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Latest Legal News