Delhi HC rejects businessman’s bail plea in excise policy case

The Delhi high court on Tuesday rejected businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall’s bail petition, noting that the evidence collected by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) revealed Dhall was instrumental and part of the larger conspiracy in the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.

In the 34-page verdict, the court noted that the evidence collected by the CBI prima facie pointed towards Dhall conspiring with co-accused Vijay Nair, playing an instrumental role in facilitating and arranging meetings with members of the ‘South Group’, and was involved in the recoupment of bribes/kickbacks by issuing additional credit notes.

According to the court, the possession of confidential government documents also indicated Dhall’s “key role” in formulating and manipulating the excise policy to secure undue financial benefits.

“As far as the nature of offence and material and evidence collected by the prosecution is concerned, the material available on record, discussed in the preceding paragraphs, prima facie reveal that the applicant Amandeep Singh Dhall, who owns M/s Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd., was in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused Vijay Nair and he was instrumental in facilitating and arranging meetings with members of South Group. He was also prima facie involved in recoupment of bribes/kickbacks by issuing additional credit notes through M/s Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd. (L-1 licensee), out of the 12% wholesale profit margin of his company since in pursuance of the conspiracy, 6% of the profit margin was agreed to be paid towards recoupment of the kickback or bribe amount,” a bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The bench further said, “The possession of confidential government documents by the present applicant also indicates his key role in formulating and manipulating the Excise Policy to secure undue financial benefits, since, as alleged, these documents could not have been legitimately possessed by the applicant, which highlights his involvement in the entire conspiracy.”

The decision comes days after the Supreme Court, stressing on the deprivation of the right of personal liberty due to prolonged delay in hearing, had requested the high court to decide Dhall’s bail plea prior to the closure of summer vacations.

Arrested by the CBI in April 2023, Dhall approached the high court against the city court’s order rejecting his bail in June last year.

Dhall was represented by senior advocate N Hariharan and advocate Tanveer Ahmad Mir, while the CBI was represented by special public prosecutor (SPP) DP Singh.

Dhall’s legal team asserted that there was no necessity to arrest him as the CBI had completed its probe qua him. Hariharan stressed that the probe agency had not even arrested the main perpetrators who were arraigned as accused.

Hariharan had also contended that the income tax returns as well as the other accounts maintained by Brindco Sales Pvt Ltd failed to disclose any irregularity. Hariharan had argued that his client had forwarded credit notes issued by the manufacturers to the retailers as per the directions of liquor manufacturers including DIAGEO, M/s United Breweries Ltd. (UBL) and M/s Sula Vineyards Pvt. Ltd. Rejecting the plea, justice Sharma said that the court at the stage of hearing the bail application cannot conduct a mini trial and ignore the material against Dhall collected by the investigating agencies including statement of witnesses, WhatsApp conversations and money trail through issuance of additional credit notes. Terming Dhall’s contention with regards to additional credit notes as meritless, justice Sharma ruled that statements of the concerned liquor manufacturers during investigation had confirmed that they had not directed Dhall to pass any additional credit notes to the retailers on his own.

Considering the incriminating documents recovered by the agency during the probe, the judge held that the same “prima facie” pointed out that Dhall was in possession of the documents and involved in the commission of the scam.

The court also shot down Dhall’s assertions that he was a whistleblower who had filed a plea exposing the scam before the Supreme Court, saying that there was no evidence on record to indicate that Dhall had himself submitted any complaint to the Excise department or filed any petition in any court. “From these observations, it appears that the applicant was not a whistle-blower but was, in fact, instrumental in the non-pursuance and ultimate withdrawal of the said petition,” the court noted.

Affirming the city court’s order, justice Sharma opined that Dhall influenced those who were conducting the probe noting that Dhall had paid ₹5 crore to not arrest him and deleting his name from the entire case of the excise policy.

The judge held that the witnesses in the case knew Dhall and he was also in close contact with influential leaders from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Delhi government to hatch the conspiracy.

“The allegations against the applicant are also serious in nature and their impact on the society and common man at large has to be considered as a factor while adjudicating an application seeking grant of regular bail,” the court noted.

The CBI, in an FIR filed in the matter in August 2022 had claimed that Dhall was actively involved in the formulation and implementation of the excise policy, along with AAP’s communications in-charge Vijay Nair and businessman Sameer Mahendru. The FIR also revealed that some wholesale distributors were issuing credit notes to retail vendors with ab initio intention to divert the funds as undue pecuniary advantage to public servants and were also showing false entries in their books.

Dhall was arrested by the ED in March. In April, the CBI took him into custody allegedly for conspiracy and involvement in the formation of policy and facilitating kickbacks to the ruling AAP. It claimed to have found documents related to the policy that allegedly showed Dhall’s involvement in the commission of the offenses in the CBI case.