The Delhi High Court has recently made crucial decisions in two separate cases related to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy scam. In one case, the court refused to grant interim bail to businessman Amit Arora, while in another, it declined to extend the medical examination and treatment duration for businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall.
Amit Arora, a director of liquor firm Buddy Retail Private Limited, had sought interim bail citing his daughter’s ill health. However, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court dismissed the plea, stating,
“This court is not inclined to grant interim bail to the accused. Accordingly, the present interim bail application stands dismissed.”
The judge, however, allowed Arora to interact with his daughter via video-conferencing from jail, as per the Prison Rules and Manual, for half an hour twice a week, in addition to any special milestone day for the daughter or her birthday.
Regarding Amandeep Singh Dhall, a director of Brindco Sales, the court observed that his current medical condition was stable and did not necessitate further stay in a hospital. Dhall was undergoing treatment at the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre in Delhi’s Vasant Kunj after being granted three weeks of medical bail. The court noted,
“According to the medical report, Dhall’s further treatment did not necessitate his stay in the hospital.”
It was also mentioned that the prescribed physiotherapy sessions could be managed at the jail premises or jail hospital.
Both Arora and Dhall are implicated in the money-laundering case stemming from the CBI FIR related to the alleged excise policy scam. The scam came under scrutiny after the Delhi lieutenant governor recommended a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in its implementation. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claim that irregularities were committed while modifying the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22, and undue favours were extended to the licence holders.
The ED alleges that Dhall conspired with others and was actively involved in the formulation of the liquor policy, facilitating kickbacks to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and its recoupment by the “South Group” through various means. The beneficiaries of the policy are accused of diverting “illegal” gains to the accused officials and making false entries in their books of accounts to evade detection.
These rulings by the Delhi High Court in the excise policy scam cases reflect the ongoing legal proceedings and the judiciary’s stance on matters involving allegations of corruption and money laundering.
Also read- Himachal Pradesh High Court Rules Non-Reporting Under POCSO Act As Bailable Offence (lawchakra.in)
