Supreme Court Issues Notice To ED On Vijay Nair's Bail Plea In Liquor Policy Case

The Bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was hearing a SLP preferred by Nair challenging the Delhi High Court order that denied him bail. 

During the course of today's proceedings, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, appearing for Nair, cited the recent case wherein the bail plea of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia was allowed. The Top Court had taken into consideration the prolonged incarceration of 17 months and the delay in trial.

Chaudhary said that Nair had gone about a year and 10 months of custody. He said that Sisodia, also a co-accused, was seeking bail in the cases registered by ED as well as CBI. However, Nair was granted bail by the Trial Court in the CBI case and is seeking bail only with respect to the PMLA case registered by the ED. “I am on a much higher footing,” he said.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for Nair, submitted that the trial has not commenced and one prosecution and eight supplementary complaints have been filed. It was also pointed out that 40 persons have been arranged as accused with nine complaints and case records are running into 50,000 pages. Additionally, 320 witnesses are expected to be examined

In this regard, the Court noted that “it is quite likely, going by the trend of things, that more supplementary complaints might be forthcoming.”  

Nair, along with co-accused persons Sameer Mahendru, Sharath Reddy, Abhishek Boinpally and Benoy Babu, were denied bail by a special judge of Rouse Avenue Courts on February 16. The trial court had noted that further investigation was still pending and it was not possible to hold that they would make no attempt to tamper with the evidence if released.

It was also observed that oral and documentary evidence suggested that Nair was also in frequent touch with various stakeholders of liquor business through different modes of communication. Their use of the said modes and App was only in pursuance of their attempt not to leave any trail of their misdeeds.

The High Court said that it did not find any illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's order and refused to interfere with the Trial Court's order.

Case Details: VIJAY NAIR vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT., Diary No. - 22137/2024