[Liquor Policy Scam] Arun Pillai Bail Plea To Be Heard By Delhi High Court On August 27

Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

CBI alleged that during the formulation of Delhi's Excise Policy for 2021-22, Pillai had engaged in a criminal conspiracy, deliberately creating or leaving exploitable loopholes in the policy.

The bail application of Hyderabad-based businessman Arun Pillai came up before the Delhi High Court’s single-judge bench comprising Justice Neena Bansal on August 16, 2024. Pillai’s counsel submitted that they were seeking bail for their client on the same grounds that they had previously sought interim bail. However, the matter has been adjourned and listed for August 27. 

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Zoheb Hussain would be making his submissions for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had arrested Pillai on March 2023 on charges of money laundering in the Delhi Liqour Policy Scam.

Pillai had sought interim bail for eight weeks on medical grounds in June 2024, claiming that he needed to undergo an Ayurvedic Panckarma therapy to cure his health problems, including lower back pain radiating to the limbs. He had mentioned in his application copy that he was also prone to falls, causing damage to his back, and had been treated for Tuberculosis in 2011. At the time a vacation bench of the High Court had asked the jail authorities to submit a report on the treatment being provided to Pillai and the conditions in which he was being kept in jail and had listed the matter for June 14.

However, during this hearing, the ED’s counsel submitted before the court that no hospital, including Max Super Speciality Hospital, from where Pillai was undergoing treatment, had referred him for panchkarma therapy, which is merely an optional therapy for rejuvenation. 

The Court concurred with this view and opined that, while they recognized the State’s responsibility to provide medical care to the accused, the need of seeking bail on medical grounds only arises when prison authorities and their referral hospitals are unable to adequately provide such care and treatment and that they were satisfied with the medical records provided by the medical officers of the Tihar Jail, where Pillai was serving his sentence. While the ailment that the accused is suffering from should be one in which, if he is not released on bail, he cannot be ensured proper treatment, in Pillai’s case there had been no lapse on the part of the jail authorities. As such, the Court denied his interim bail application.
 
Notably, Pillai had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 6 and sent to judicial custody after remand orders against him were passed by the trial court, under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He is alleged to be involved in the liqour policy scam in which the Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal is also an accused.
At the time, Pillai had challenged his arrest, claiming that no grounds for the same, in either oral or written form, had been provided to him and that this violated his constitutional rights. He stated in his plea that a “witch hunting exercise” was being used to target him, saying that “The Directorate of Enforcement, in a vindictive manner and solely as a witch hunting exercise, has employed coercive tactics to obtain information and used third-degree measures on the petitioner/applicant, herein as well as the other accused.”
 
He had also sought bail as early as October 2023, saying that there was “not an iota of evidence” to keep him in jail. Interestingly, the ED claimed in its chargesheet that Pillai was linked to prominent political figure, Former Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao’s daughter and Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader, K Kavitha.
He was alleged to have been a member of the “South Group”, a cartel of liquor businessmen and politicians who were claimed to have paid Rs. 100 crore to the ruling AAP (Aam Aadmi Party ) in Delhi as dispensation for favors. He was arrested following allegations that he represented this cartel in meetings with the other accused in the case while the Delhi excise policy was being formulated.