Delhi Excise Policy: HC Denies Bail to Businessman Amandeep Dhall

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall, who was arrested by the CBI in a corruption case linked to the alleged excise policy scam, citing the serious nature of the accusations against him.

Court’s Remarks

The court noted that many witnesses in the case are known to Dhall, and he was in contact with “influential leaders” of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the Delhi government for “hatching a conspiracy,” failing to satisfy the triple test for the grant of bail.

“The allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, and their impact on society and the common man at large must be considered when adjudicating an application seeking regular bail,” the court stated while dismissing his application.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma took strong note of Dhall’s argument about undue delay in deciding his bail application, which was filed in July 2023. The judge pointed out that the accused’s bail application was listed and heard on 40 occasions by the high court but was adjourned until July 8, 2024, for arguments.

In its 34-page order, the high court provided a list of dates on which Dhall’s bail plea was listed and the orders passed by the predecessor bench and by Justice Sharma. The court rejected the argument that Dhall’s liberty as an individual was compromised due to prolonged incarceration, stating that the delay was contrary to the record.

The court noted, “The conduct of the applicant in moving multiple, frequent interim applications resulted in postponement of the hearing date for the regular bail application. Meanwhile, he remained in private and government hospitals on many occasions. Therefore, any delay in hearing the bail application cannot be attributed to the court and cannot be used as a ground for granting bail.”

The regular bail application had been listed on 17 occasions, and on about 9 of these occasions, applications for interim bail on medical grounds, admission to private hospitals, or extension of hospitalization were also listed for hearing. On the remaining 8 occasions, either notices were issued, or arguments were addressed on behalf of the applicant.

Justice Sharma highlighted that the matter had been listed and heard by the court on about 20 other occasions. Over the past 11 months, Dhall had filed 14 applications seeking interim reliefs in the present bail application, and arguments were heard on all occasions with effective orders passed. All 14 applications were disposed of.

Medical Treatment

Though Dhall was never released on interim bail, he was provided hospitalization and medical treatment of his choice, spending more than 6 out of 15 months of custody in hospitals. On May 17, the Supreme Court had observed that every single day counts in matters concerning the liberty of citizens and directed the high court to decide Dhall’s bail plea before the summer vacations, which began on June 3. The high court reserved its order on the bail plea on May 29 after hearing arguments from Dhall’s counsel and the CBI.

The court noted that charges are yet to be framed and evidence is yet to be recorded.

Complaint against Dhall

An FIR has been registered against Dhall for paying a bribe to an Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer to remove his name from the case. Dhall is an accused in separate cases linked to the alleged scam being probed by the CBI and the ED. A trial court had previously dismissed his regular bail plea in the corruption case lodged by the CBI.

According to probe agencies, Dhall allegedly conspired with other accused and was “actively” involved in formulating the liquor policy and facilitating kickbacks to the AAP, with recoupment by the “South Group” through various means. Irregularities were committed while modifying the excise policy, and undue favours were extended to license holders. The Delhi government implemented the policy on November 17, 2021, and scrapped it at the end of September 2022 amid allegations of corruption.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International