The Delhi High Court recently granted bail to businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall, who was implicated in the Delhi Excise Policy case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA ), 2002.
The Applicant submitted that he is a highly-educated 50-year-old citizen of India who is holding B. Com. (Hons.) from Hindu College, University of Delhi with early training in the U.K. Graduate Honours and Certifications from Harvard Business School, Masters of International Management and Stanford School of Business, Enterprise Program for Growing Companies (EPGC). The Applicant along with his family, run M/s Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd. , a successful Company that is engaged in the business of sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages for the last 55 years with strong relationships with leading Indian alcohol manufacturing Companies.
Join the Future of Finance: Live Online Training in Foreign Exchange Management, Click here
The Main Prosecution Complaint was filed by the ED on 26.11.2022 against five persons and thereafter 1st Supplementary Prosecution Complaint was filed on 06.01.2023 wherein it was alleged that the kickbacks were disguised through the issuance of Credit Notes to retailers with no direct transaction history.
The Applicant submits that he was arrested on 01.03.2023 by the ED and was duly produced before the Ld. Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, Central District, New Delhi. The 2nd SPC was filed on 27.04.2023, after a month of the Applicant‟s arrest wherein he was not made an accused. In the CBI Case, a Supplementary Charge Sheet was filed against Five persons including the Applicant. Thereafter on 27.04.2023, 3rd SPC was filed by the ED wherein M/s Brindco was arrayed as Accused No. 27 and the Applicant was arrayed as Accused No. 28.
He was under prolonged incarceration since March 1, 2023. The bail was granted based on several conditions.
It was submitted that the Respondent has only interrogated the Applicant once during his period of incarceration with his last date of interrogation in the ED case on 16.11.2023, showing that his continued incarceration is not required for further investigation.
The court noted that the case against the applicant was primarily based on documentary evidence and statements of co-accused, many of which had been retracted. The court found no direct evidence suggesting that Dhall would tamper with witnesses or destroy evidence, especially given that all relevant documents had already been seized.
Dhall was considered not to be a flight risk. The court observed that he had deep roots in society, with his business and family ties based in India. Moreover, his educational background and business operations provided further assurance that he was unlikely to abscond.
The court imposed stringent bail conditions, including a bail bond of ₹10 lakh with two sureties of the same amount. Dhall was required to surrender his passport, regularly report to the investigating officer, and avoid contact with witnesses.
Join the Future of Finance: Live Online Training in Foreign Exchange Management, Click here
The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the purpose of pre-trial detention is not punitive and that Dhall had already been in custody for a considerable period, while the trial was expected to take a significant amount of time due to the voluminous evidence involved. Hence, a prolonged incarceration was seen as unjustifiable.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
