Excise Case: Delhi HC Notice To ED On Vijay Nair’s Bail Plea

The Delhi High Court today issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the bail plea of the former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) communications incharge Vijay Nair in the money laundering case.
It involves the Delhi Government’s new excise policy (now scrapped).

In his bail plea, Vijay Nair stated that he was being victimized on account of his political affiliation and there was no merit in the FIR or ostensibly the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) & ED.

Also, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma issued a notice to ED and listed the matter for May 19, 2023.

Further, in his bail plea, Vijay Nair stated allegations against him were wrongful, false, and without any basis, and on the basis of such superfluous allegations, the Petitioner’s liberty ought not to be encroached upon by the Respondent.

The plea stated that “The Petitioner is liable to be enlarged on bail and his constitutionally protected freedom of liberty be protected by this Court.”

In February, his bail got denied by the trial Court along with others. While rejecting the bail plea, the Rouse Avenue Court observed that none of the applicants/accused deserved to be released on bail in this case at this stage of proceedings as the allegations made against them were quite serious and related to the commission of an economic offense of the money laundering defined by Section 3 and made punishable by Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Hence, their bail applications were dismissed.

South-based businessmen Binoy Babu and Abhishek Boinpally already moved bail petitions in Delhi High Court.

The ED in its 2nd chargesheet in the liquor policy case named Vijay Nair, Sharath Reddy, Binoy Babu, Abhishek Boinpally, Amit Arora and seven companies.

Earlier, Nair & Boinpally were granted bail by the trial in the CBI case in relation to the excise case.

Later the CBI challenged the trial court order in the Delhi High Court, which is presently under consideration by the same bench.

Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia was also arrested by the CBI & ED in a case of alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the excise policy of the Delhi government.
Sisodia got arrested by the CBI on February 26, 2023, and by ED on March 9, 2023.

The trial court while denying bail to Sisodia in the CBI case recently stated that the allegations made against Sisodia were serious in nature and he didn’t deserve to be released on bail as he was arrested in this case only on February 26, 2023.

According to the CBI, Sisodia played the most important and vital role in the criminal conspiracy.

Therefore, he had been deeply involved in the formulation as well as the implementation of the said policy to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the said conspiracy.

CBI stated that the payment of advance kickbacks of around Rs 90-100 crore was meant for him and his other colleagues in the Delhi government and Rs 20-30 crore out of the above are found to have been routed through the co-accused Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally and approver Dinesh Arora and in turn, certain provisions of the excise policy were permitted to be tweaked and manipulated by the applicant to protect and preserve the interests of South liquor lobby and to ensure repayment of the kickbacks to the said lobby.

Further, the evidence collected so far clearly showed that the applicant through the co-accused Vijay Nair was in contact with the South lobby, and formulation of a favorable policy for them was being ensured at every cost and a cartel was permitted to be formed to achieve a monopoly in sales of certain liquor brands of favored manufacturers and it was permitted to be done against very objectives of the policy.

In the case, the ED & CBI alleged that irregularities were committed while modifying the Excise Policy, undue favors were extended to license holders, the license fee was waived or reduced and the L-1 license was extended without the competent authority’s approval.

The beneficiaries diverted “illegal” gains to the accused officials and made false entries in their books of account to evade detection.