Liquor Policy Scam: Delhi High Court Refuses To Extend Interim Bail Of Businessman Arun Ramachandra Pillai

The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the interim bail granted to Hyderabad based businessman Arun Ramachandra Pillai in the money laundering case connected to the alleged liquor policy scam.

Pillai was granted interim bail on December 28 last year on the ground of medical condition of his wife who had undergone a surgery.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma however granted extension of three days of interim bail to Pillai, who was asked to surrender on January 20, for travelling back to the national capital and making arrangement of an attendant for his wife, if not made yet.

The court directed Pillai to surrender before the jail authority on January 24 and clarified that no application for extension of interim bail will be entertained in future on similar grounds.

“The interim bail is for the purpose of any emergency for a short period and cannot be extended for a long duration,” the court said.

Justice Sharma disposed of an application moved by Pillai seeking extension of interim bail granted to him. 

It was submitted that his wife had to be administered PRP Steroid Procedure (Platelet Rich Plasma Injection) for healing process and that and she would require an attendant for six weeks. It was also stated that she had pain and related mobility issues.

On the other hand, the the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the extension of interim bail on the ground that there was no urgency nor any requirement for the permanent attendant for Pillai's wife and that she was only to be administered PRP injection.

Disposing of the plea, the court said that the medical record reflected administration of PRP injections to Pillai's wife and that she may require an attendant to be with her.

“In such circumstances, since the applicant has been on interim bail since 18.12.2023, no ground for grant of extension of interim bail is made out. The applicant is to surrender on 20.01.2024 as per last order,” the court said.

It added: “However, the applicant is granted extension of three days of interim bail, on the same terms and conditions, for the purpose of travelling back to Delhi and for making arrangement of an attendant, if required if not made yet. The applicant will surrender before the jail authority on 24.01.2024.”

According to the ED, Pillai was a part of 'south group' consisting of a group of leaders from the south India that allegedly sent kickbacks worth Rs. 100 crores to the Aam Admi Party leaders accused in the case.

It was also alleged that Pillai provided illegal gratification to public servants to secure liquor licenses in Delhi.

AAP leaders Satyendar Jain, Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh are also accused in the matter. They are presently in judicial custody.

The origin of the controversy is the excise policy framed by the Government of the National Capital of Delhi to boost revenue and reform liquor trade in 2021, which was later withdrawn after allegations of irregularities in implementation were made and Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the policy.

This policy – which sought to completely privatise liquor trade in the national capital – was used to grant undue advantage to private entities at the cost of the public exchequer and smacked of corruption, the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation have claimed.

They have alleged that there was a coordinated conspiracy to provide extraordinary profit margins to wholesalers, led by individuals including Vijay Nair acting on behalf of Manish Sisodia. The investigations are currently underway and have led to the arrest of Sisodia and others.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitesh Rana, Mr. Anuj Tiwari, Mr. Kaushal Kait, Mr. Deepak Nagar, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Mr. Arveen Sekhon & Ms. Monika, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani & Mr. Baibhav, Advocates

Title: ARUN RAMCHANDRAN PILLAI v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 77

Click Here To Read Order