Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to remove defects and place on record the chargesheet in the plea challenging the trial court orders granting bail to Aam Aadmi Party communication in-charge Vijay Nair and Hyderabad-based businessman Abhishek Boinpally in the Delhi Excise Policy scam case.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Vijay Nair, submitted, “In Order dated July 18, 2023, they were directed to place, file, and give us advance copies of the same. We have not received the advance copies, nor have they been filed on record".

Counsel for CBI contended, “We have filed the chargesheet, but it is under defects. Regardless, today I am not even going to refer to the chargesheets. This is an order where I am challenging the observations on the merits that the order passed is not in conformity with the parameters of bail."

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, “It is stated that the petitioner were directed to file the chargesheet vide order dated 18.07.2023, however, the chargesheet has not been placed on record. Since, it has been reported under objection. The objection be removed, and the same be placed on record.

“After the same is filed, let a copy of the same be given to the respondent in digitalized form by the Registry, the court ordered. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 20, 2024.

The single-judge bench was hearing a plea moved by the CBI against the trial court order granting bail to the two accused in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy Case.

In November, Justice Yogesh Khanna issued notice to Nair and  Boinpally in the present matter. The single-judge bench also sought reply from the duo and deferred the stay on CBI’s plea.

On November 14, Special Judge MK Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi, granted bail to the two accused. Thereafter, the two were arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) the same day.

During the hearing, in November, the counsel for CBI had contended that the accused person (Vijay Nair) is a position holder in a political party (AAP) and that a large sum of money of Rs. 30 crores in cash came to Delhi from South India. He had further contended, “How is he benefited from this, is to be investigated, My Lord!”

Referring to the Trial Court order, he had said that bail was granted to the duo just because there were “oral statements of witnesses” stating the transactions, and that they did not have documents. Furthermore, he had stated that the trial court also granted bail to the accused stating that trial in the present case would take time.

On the contrary, Senior Advocate Rebecca John appearing for Vijay Nair had vehemently opposed each contention of the CBI. She had contended, “I(Nair) have co-operated since the beginning, I have sent 5 of my phones for investigation”. John had further contended that earlier, bail was granted in 2 days, but now the whole jurisprudence has changed in the country, it is now JAIL, not BAIL.

The senior counsel had submitted, “I (Vijay Nair) am media in-charge of the AAP”, and had added, "Some money is connected to me, but is there anything to suggest that I collected the money"? She had informed the court that the day Nair was granted bail by the trial court, on the very same day, he was arrested by the ED in the same case. She had argued that these agencies act in tandem.

Case Title: CBI v. Vijay Nair & CBI v. Abhishek Binopally