Delhi Excise Policy Scam | Supreme Court Seeks ED's Response To Bail Plea Of Hyderabad Businessman Abhishek Boinpally
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the bail application of Hyderabad-based businessman Abhishek Boinpally who is facing charges of money laundering in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam. This 2021-22 liquor policy, introduced by the Aam Aadmi Party-led government in the national capital, was scrapped following allegations of irregularities in the framing...
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the bail application of Hyderabad-based businessman Abhishek Boinpally who is facing charges of money laundering in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam. This 2021-22 liquor policy, introduced by the Aam Aadmi Party-led government in the national capital, was scrapped following allegations of irregularities in the framing and implementation. Boinpally has been in custody since October last year.
Yesterday, bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti sought the reply of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in response to Boinpally’s bail plea. He is under the scanner of both the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), although he was granted bail in the CBI case by a local court in Delhi in November last year.
Although the Enforcement Directorate submitted a letter for adjournment today, the bench was persuaded to issue notice after Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of Boinpally, urged the matter to be taken on board.
The senior counsel argued, “There is not a penny’s worth of money trail. This kind of citing Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act…They have relied on statement of a co-accused. He is in great trouble. His mother is in the hospital…”
“Mother-in-law,” Advocate Zoheb Hussain, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, chimed in.
“Doesn’t matter,” Rohatgi replied.
“She has her own son,” Hussain retorted.
Amused at the courtroom banter, Justice Khanna asked, “Should we issue notice?”
“I leave it to Your Lordships,” Hussain said, “We only request at least three weeks to file a reply.”
Rohatgi remonstrated against the length of the period of adjournment sought. “This is not fair. There’s not a penny’s worth of money trail,” Rohatgi repeated.
“Close to the date when these matters are listed, their relatives suffer a fall and need care. It’s a trend now,” Hussain remarked.
The bench ultimately acceded to the Enforcement Directorate’s request to be granted three weeks’ time to file a reply. Justice Khanna dictated:
“Issue notice returnable in the month of October…Reply may be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks after the service of the reply.”
Background
The origin of the controversy is the excise policy framed by the Government of the National Capital of Delhi to boost revenue and reform liquor trade in 2021, which was later withdrawn after allegations of irregularities in implementation were made and Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the policy. This policy – which sought to completely privatise liquor trade in the national capital – was used to grant undue advantage to private entities at the cost of the public exchequer and smacked of corruption, the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation have claimed. The investigations are currently underway and led to the arrest of, among others, Manish Sisodia – the former deputy chief minister of Delhi and a prominent leader of the Aam Aadmi Party.
Boinpally, a former director of Robin Distilleries LLP and an alleged middleman, is among the people who are being investigated. He was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in October last year, but one month later he got bail in the CBI case. However, this relief was short-lived as at the same time Special Judge MK Nagpal also allowed the Enforcement Directorate’s plea to take Boinpally into custody for five days. Boinpally has been under incarceration since October as a trial court declined to grant him bail in the ED case in February this year.
“[There is no] illegality in the order of the trial court…The accused, acting in furtherance of a conspiracy, circumvented the policy and got framed the policy in such a way that to continuously generate and channel illegal fund…The allegations are that deliberate loopholes were left to facilitate illegal and criminal activity. It is also pertinent to note that the investigation has revealed that 65 percent stakes were given to the South Group in Indospirits to make it a mechanism of continuous generation and channelization of proceeds of crime…Taking into account the seriousness and gravity of the allegation and credible material on record, the bail application along with pending applications stands dismissed.”
On the same day, the single-judge bench also dismissed the bail application of co-accused and Pernod Ricard executive Benoy Babu.
Case Details
Abhishek Boinpally v. Directorate of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9038 of 2023