He Is Not Likely To Abscond From Country: Delhi HC Grants Bail To Hyderabad Businessman Arun Pillai In Excise Policy Case
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Hyderabad based businessman Arun Ramchandran Pillai in excise policy case.
The Court was dealing with a bail application filed by the accused under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, “… the Applicant is an experienced professional with various educational qualifications and had volunteered to work with Organisations such as UNICEF Canada to educate children about UNICEF’s work for children across the world, as well as with Afghans4tomorrow to help improve the business skills of students at the Kabul Education University. The Applicant despite being lodged in Tihar Jail No.4 as an under-trial prisoner, has volunteered as Horticulture Sahayak. The Applicant has deep roots in the society and is not a flight risk and has business and professions which are based in India and he is not likely to abscond from the country.”
Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur appeared for the petitioner/accused while Advocates (Special Counsels) Zoheb Hossain and Manish Jain appeared for the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
In this case, the Delhi Government released the Delhi Excise Policy for the year 2021-2022 and the same was implemented thereafter. A complaint was registered in 2022 alleging large-scale malpractice and corruption in the framing and implementation of the Excise Policy and the same was conveyed to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for necessary enquiry and action.
The CBI then registered an FIR under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 7, 7A, and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against 15 persons including the petitioner-accused. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested in March 2023 by the ED. Therefore, he sought bail before the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard observed, “As noted in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC, there is no possibility of tampering of evidence by the Applicant if the Applicant is granted bail as the case is primarily dependent on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. Similarly, the apprehension regarding influencing witnesses and that of being a flight risk can be diffused by imposing stringent conditions while granting bail. Therefore, the conditions of triple test are duly satisfied by the Applicant.”
The Court further noted that the petitioner has been behind bars since March 2023 and that there are around 69,000 pages of documents involved in both CBI and ED matters. It added that there are 493 witnesses who have to be examined on behalf of the prosecution and in the same case, the other accused persons have already been admitted to bail in similar circumstances.
“In the case of Manish Sisodia (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. It was further observed that fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to statutory restrictions and reiterated the principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”, it remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court granted bail to the accused, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10 lakhs with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge/Trial Court.
Cause Title- Arun Ramchandran Pillai v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7008)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, Advocates Nitesh Rana, Anuj Tiwari, Kaushal Kait, Deepak Nagar, Soumya Kumar, Rahul Kumar, and Nikhil Kohli.
Respondent: Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Manish Jain, Vivek Gurnani, Vivek Guurav, Kanishk Maurya, Pranjal Tripathi, and Kartik Sabharwal.
Click here to read/download the Judgment