Delhi Liquor Policy Case | 'There Seems To Be Contradictions Between CBI & ED Allegations' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Pernod Ricard Regional Head

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 8) granted bail to Benoy Babu, Regional Manager of Pernod Ricard India(Indian subsidiary of global liquor company), in the money laundering case in connection with the Delhi liquor policy scam.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti granted bail to Babu considering the fact that he has undergone 13 months of incarceration and that the trial in the case has not yet commenced.  The bench allowed the appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's judgment which denied him bail in July this year.

During the hearing, Justice Khanna orally remarked that there appeared to be contradictions between the allegations of the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement(ED) as regards Babu. Justice Khanna further said that a person cannot be kept behind the bars as an undertrial indefinitely.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Babu, submitted that he was a "junior employee" of the company, having no role to play in the policy making process.  

Salve highlighted that according to the ED's case, the appellant met Vijay Nair (alleged associate of Minister Manish Sisodia) on 27th March, 2021 for the first time. However, the policy was already announced five days ago, on March 22. Therefore, Salve questioned the basis of ED's allegation that he had a role in framing the controversial policy.

Pointing out that the controversial liquor policy is alleged to be framed at the instance of wholesale liquor distributors, Salve asserted that an employee of a manufacturer  can have no role in that. Salve highlighted that the liquor manufacturers were not batting for the policy; in fact, they wanted the previous system to continue. He said that the Indo Spirit is alleged to be the bad player and the CBI's case is that Pernod Ricard was "forced" to sign an agreement with Indo Spirits. If that is the allegation, where is the criminality attached to the employee of the company, Salve wondered.

"The CBI case is that the manufacturer was asked to do business with this distributor...there is something more serious. In the CBI case, I am not an accused. CBI records that there is a serious problem with Indo Spirits...and Pernod Ricard, the largest manufacturer, was directed to do business with Indo Spirits", Salve pointed out. If Pernod Ricard was forced, then it can't be conspiring.

Salve said that CBI has relied on the statements of Benoy Babu to substantiate its allegations against Indo Spirts, whereas the ED has made him an accused.

"Whatever is done is done by the company. Board resolutions are passed. He is the regional head. He is a junior employee of the company", Salve said.

"He is not a junior employee," Justice Khanna commented. In reply, Salve said, "He is not a part in the board, he is not a Managing Director. He is not a policy maker in the company. A regional manager will not take decisions of high level policy for the company," Salve highlighted.

Justice Khanna at this point asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju if it was factually correct that Benoy Babu met Vijay Nair for the first time on March 27.

"That seems to be correct," ASG said. "Then he was not involved in the policy making," Justice Khanna added

ASG however said that Benoy Babu was found in possession of confidential excise policy documents, which were never officially released by the excise department.  "Before the policy was known to the public, he knew," ASG said.

At this juncture, expressing doubts about the ED's case, Justice Khanna said :

"You can't have pre-trial detention of people going for years.  This is proper. You can't keep people pre-detention trial. We still don't know where this will go, in the sense how many other accused are going to be brought in...There seems to be contradiction between what the CBI is alleging and what the ED is alleging. Let him be released on bail."

When ASG attempted to make further arguments, Justice Khanna said, "if you want I can record these (in the order)". ASG requested that the bench refrain from making observations on the merits of the matter.

"You can't keep somebody behind bards without trial. Normally, trials should be concluded within 2 years," Justice Khanna repeated.

In the order, the bench observed :

"Our attention drawn to assertions made by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement specifically with regard to the present appellant Benoy Babu....it is pointed out he has suffered incarceration for about 13 months and trial has not commenced, in the sense that charges not yet been framed. The senior counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to several facts, including placing reliance on observations made in the judgment of this court in Manish Sisodia. Having regard to the aforesaid factum, including the period of incarceration already suffered by the appellant, we allow the present appeal, and direct that he be released on bail...."

The bench also noted that Babu is not an accused in the CBI case, where he is a prosecution witness.

After the dictation of the order, ASG requested the bench to add in the order that it will not be used as a precedent. However, Justice Khanna refused, saying "I am not going to add anything. 13 months is long enough". Justice Khanna pointed out that the order clarifies that the bail is granted having regard to the facts of the case.

 Case : Benoy Babu v. Directorate of Enforcement | SLP(Crl) No. 11644-11645/2023

 Click Here To Read/Download Order