[Excise Policy Case] Delhi High Court dismisses Bizman Amit Arora's interim bail plea on grounds of daughter's illness

Read Time: 06 minutes


Amit Arora’s name is mentioned both in the ED and the CBI cases as accused, along with Dinesh Arora, another director of Buddy Retail Pvt Ltd

The Delhi High Court on Friday "dismissed" the interim bail plea of businessman Amit Arora, an accused in the Delhi excise policy scam case. He had sought interim bail on the grounds of his daughter's illness. 

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, "Dismissed, with directions". A copy of detailed order is awaited. 

Notably, on November 7, the court had reserved order in the interim bail plea. 

Amit Arora is one of the directors of Buddy Retail Pvt. Ltd., who was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with the alleged Delhi Excise Policy Scam case.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appeared for Arora and had contended that his daughter was unwell and, as per medical records, required the care of her parents. 

The senior counsel had submitted that Arora’s daughter had a Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) on December 2, and she was not preparing for the same due to her illness.  It was also contended that Arora was also not keeping well and had been in custody since November 29, 2022.

Opposing the interim bail plea, the counsel for ED had argued that as per the medical records, Arora’s daughter required the care of family members and that there were other members of the family who could take care of her.

Notably, on September 6, the high court allowed Arora to be admitted to the hospital for post operative care after his surgery. The bench had noted, "Firstly, every person suffering from a medical ailment is entitled to an effective and appropriate medical treatment and secondly, the prosecution is also entitled for ensuring that the interim bail does not become a shortcut method to circumvent the rigors of the special legislation as Section 45 in the present case."

The bench had stressed that the courts function on the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence and that detention during the period of investigation and trial cannot be a punitive measure. "If a person is sick, he should be given appropriate medical treatment in order to at least enable him to face the trial ir accordance with the law," the bench had said.

Considering the matter at hand, the court had directed Arora to be admitted to RML Hospital; however, Arora was to remain in the custody of the superintendent jail at RML Hospital. Additionally, appropriate security guards were also to be deployed with Arora.

Amit Arora’s name is mentioned both in the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation cases as accused, along with Dinesh Arora, another director of Buddy Retail Pvt Ltd. Other accused persons include Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, the then Excise Commissioner Arva Gopi Krishna, Deputy Commissioner Anand Tiwari, and Assistant Commissioner Pankaj Bhatnagar, Manoj Rai, a former employee of Pernod Ricard; Amandeep Dhal, director of Brindco Sales; and authorized signatories of Mahadev Liquors Sunny Marwah, Arun Ramchandra Pillai, Arjun Pandey, and others.

Case Title: Amit Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement