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

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