Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Directorate of Enforcement (ED) before the Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, while strongly opposing the bail plea of businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall, Director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, contended that there were attempts to tamper with the witness.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reserved its order on the bail application of Amandeep Singh Dhall in connection with the Delhi liquor excise policy scam.

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing Amandeep Singh Dhall, addressed the Supreme Court’s recent judgment of granting bail to Manish Sisodia on August 9, Kavitha on August 27, and Vijay Nair on September 2 in connection to the now-scrapped liquor excise policy scam.

Considering this, Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan stated that the “only allegation against him is related to RC 33, which concerns events pre-arrest". The allegation claims he attempted to prevent his arrest and influence an Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer. The investigation has been ongoing for over a year, during which Dhall has been interrogated despite all this, no ED officer who influenced has been arrested. 

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan also noted that Dhall's elderly father, in a desperate attempt to protect his son, was allegedly extorted by a chartered accountant (CA). All these actions were intended to prevent Dhall's arrest. However on March 1, 2023, Amandeep Singh Dhall was arrested and is now in custody for 22 weeks and despite severe illness and health issues, he has not been granted a single day of interim bail.

"He has been treated as if he were a serious criminal," Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan stated.

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan also pointed out that the top court, while granting bail to Vijay Nair, observed that the right to liberty guaranteed under the Constitution’s Article 21 is sacrosanct and required to be respected even in cases under stringent provisions of laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

In response, Advocate Vivek Gurnani, representing the Enforcement Directorate, stated that the Honorable Court had previously denied bail to Dhall based on his actions and conduct. 

While referring to the Vijay Nair case, Advocate Vivek Gurnani, said that the ED did not argue that case, and there were no allegations of tampering with witnesses or influencing the investigation in the First Information Report (FIR).

Advocate Vivek Gurnani stated that, according to the FIR, the key distinction from Vijay Nair's case is that while in custody, Dhall allegedly tried to bribe and influence the investigation and these allegations were supported by witness statements, documentary evidence, independent evidence, and WhatsApp chats.

Previously, the bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed Dhall's plea for regular bail in the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

“There is well-founded apprehension of the applicant herein influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence as, as a testament to the same, an FIR stands registered against the accused,"  the bench noted.

The bench observed the FIR registered against Dhall for allegedly paying bribes to influence the investigation.

Case Title: Amandeep Singh Dhall v Directorate Of Enforcement (Bail Application- 2761/2024)