"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

Similar News