The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate on the interim bail plea of businessman Sameer Mahendru, one of the accused in the Delhi Excise policy money laundering case.
Sameer Mahendru has sought medical bail on medical grounds. He is one of the accused in the Delhi Excise policy money laundering case involving former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma sought a response from the ED and listed the matter for further hearing on October 18.
The trial court dismissed his interim bail on October 6 giving certain directions to jail authorities.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the petitioner that the petitioner had fallen in the hospital and was on the floor for around 12 minutes. Nobody was there to attend to him, despite a direction from the court to provide a full-time attendant.
The trial court also noticed from the CCTV footage pertaining to the fall of the applicant that after the above fall suffered by him during the intervening night of 0607.09.2023, no attendant or official of the jail staff came to help him for a considerable duration of around 12-13 minutes.
The court stated, “This is not acceptable when the claim of jail authorities is that he is lying admitted therein under constant supervision and CCTV coverage for 24/7 hours.”
Hence, it is being directed that one full-time attendant be provided to take care of the applicant by rotation of their duties so that such an incident is not repeated, the trial court directed on October 6, 2023.
He was arrested in this case on September 28, 2022 and his regular bail application was dismissed by the trial court on February 16, this year.
Thereafter, he also approached the high court for a grant of regular bail and his regular bail plea is still pending consideration before the high court and is stated to be fixed for hearing on 05.12.2023, the trial court noted in the order.
While opposing the bail plea, it was contended by the Special Counsel and SPP for ED that, all the prescribed facilities can very much be provided to the applicant in the jail dispensary/MI room and it is further their submission that the above fall by the applicant in jail was a self-suffered fall to create a ground for his interim bail.
Furthermore it has been submitted by them that earlier, on 27.04.2023, the high court had even permitted the applicant to visit his private doctor for treatment, while directing him to surrender to custody, under adequate security arrangements.
While he may continue to get treatment from his private doctor on an OPD basis, there is no need to grant him interim bail in the case.
