Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Vijay Nair – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Bail Appln. 1178 of 2023
Decided On : 03-07-2023
BAIL - MONEY LAUNDERING - SECTION 3 OF PMLA - SCOPE AND AMBIT - HELD, SECTION 3 OF PMLA HAS A WIDER REACH AND ANYBODY WHO IS ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN KNOWINGLY ASSISTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY PROCESS OR ACTIVITY WITH THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME INCLUDING ASSISTING IN THE GENERATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME WOULD BE GUILTY OF OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING.
Fact of the Case:
THE PRESENT CASE ARISES OUT OF AN ALLEGED CONSPIRACY WHEREIN THE GOVERNMENT FRAMED AN EXCISE POLICY WITH A MALA FIDE INTENTION TO RECOUP THE KICKBACKS RECEIVED IN ADVANCE FROM CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND TO FURTHER GENERATE THE ILL MONEY FROM THE LIQUOR TRADE.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT AT THIS STAGE, JUST CANNOT IGNORE THE STATEMENT OF SUCH WITNESSES UNDER SECTION 50 OF PMLA. THE PARTICIPATION OR ROLE OF VIJAY NAIR CAN BE ASSESSED FROM THE STATEMENT OF MR. SURESH MENON REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL SPIRITS AND WINES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA, (ISWAI) DATED 05.12.20222 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE PETITIONER EXPRESSED THAT THE FOREIGN PLAYERS ARE VERY QUIET WHILE THE INDIAN PLAYERS ARE APPROACHING AND HAVE OFFERED FUNDING TO THE PARTY IN LIEU OF MAINTAINING STATUS QUO.
Issues: WHETHER THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO BAIL IN THE PRESENT CASE.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT AT THE STAGE OF GRANTING BAIL HAS ONLY THE MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE INVESTIGATING AGENCY. THE OPINION TO BE FORMED AT THIS STAGE IS ON THE BASIS OF SUCH MATERIAL. THE BAR UNDER SECTION 45 OF PMLA CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT BAIL CAN ONLY BE GRANTED IF THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT GUILTY OF SUCH OFFENCE.
Final Decision: THE COURT REJECTED THE BAIL APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER.
JUDGMENT
INDEX
| S. No. | Particulars | Page No |
| 1. | Factual Matrix | 2-18 |
| 2. | Submissions on behalf of Petitioner | 18-24 |
| 3. | Submissions on behalf of Respondent/ED | 24-27 |
| 4. | Finding and Analysis | 27-45 |
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
CRL.M.A. 11089/2023
The present application has been moved seeking early hearing.
For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.
BAIL APPLN. 1178/2023
1. The present order shall dispose of the bail application no. 1178/2023 of "Vijay Nair vs Directorate of Enforcement".
2. The bail applications filed by petitioner Vijay Nair was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, PC Act, CBI-09 vide order dated 16.02.2023.
3. Briefly the facts as stated by Enforcement Directorate are as under:
"5. An FIR No. RC0032022A0053 dated 17.08.2022 was registered by CBI, ACB, New Delhi against Sh. Manish Sisodia, Deputy Chief Minister, GNCTD of Delhi and others under Section 120B r/w 477A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for irregularities in framing and implementation of the excise policy of GNCTD of Delhi for the year 2021-22.
6. The FIR is registered on the direction of competent authority conveyed by Shri Praveen Kumar Rai, Director, MHA, Govt. Of India vide OM No. 14035/06/2022-Delhi-1 dated 22/07/22 for enquiry into the matter of irregularities in framing and implementation of the excise policy of GNCTD of Delhi for the year 2021-22. Vide said OM Shri Praveen Kumar Rai has also forwarded DO letter no. SLG/Conf./2022/75 dated 20/07/2022 of Shri Vinai Kumar Saxena, Hon'ble Lt. Governor, GNCTD of Delhi alleging irregularities in framing and implementation of the excise policy of GNCTD of Delhi for the year 2021-22.
7. The OM discloses that Shri Manish Sisodia, Deputy Chief Minister, GNCTD of Delhi, Shri Arva Gopi Krishna, the then Commissioner (Excise), GNCTD of Delhi and Shri Pankaj Bhatnagar, Assistant Commissioner (Exicse), GNCTD of Delhi were instrumental in recommending and taking decisions pertaining to excise policy for the year 2021-22 without approval of competent authority with an intention to extend undue favors to the licensees post tender.
8. In the said FIR it has been inter-alia stated/alleged that:
a. Sh. Vijay Nair, Former CEO of M/s Only Much Louder, an entertainment and event management company, Shri Manoj Rai, Ex-employee of M/s Pernod Ricard, Sh. Amandeep Dhall, Owner of M/s Brindco Spirits & Sh. Sameer Mahendru. Owner of M/s Indo Spirits are actively involved in irregularities in framing and implementation of excise policy of GNCTD of Delhi for the year 2021-22.
b. Some of the L-1 Licence holders are issuing credits notes to retail vendors with an ab-initio intention to divert the funds as undue pecuniary advantage to Public Servants. In furtherance to this, they are showing false entries in their books of accounts to keep their record straight.
c. Shri Amit Arora, Director of M/s Buddy Retail Pvt. Limited, 1402, Tower-15, Vipul Greens, Gurgaon. Haryana, Shri Dinesh Arora Rio Plot No.-139, III Floor. Block-A. Gujrawala Town, Phase-I. Delhi. Shri Arjun Pandey are close associates of Shri Manish Sisodia and are actively involved in managing and diverting the undue pecuniary advantage collected from Liquor Licensees to accused public servants. That Shri Sameer Mahendru, MD. M/s Indospirits has transferred an amount of one crore to account no. 10220210004647 of M/s Radha Industries maintained with UCO Bank. Rajendra Place, New Delhi. M/s Radha Industries is being managed by Shri Dinesh Arora. That Shri Arun Ramchandra Pillai used to collect undue pecuniary advantage from Shri Sameer Mahendru, MD. M/s Indospirit for onward transmission to accused public servant through Shri Vijay Nair. A person named Arjun Pandey has once collected huge cash amount of about Rs.2-4 crores from Shri Sameer Mahendru on behalf of Shri Vijay Nair.
d. M/s Mahadev Liquors, a proprietorship firm was granted L- 1 License. Sh. Sunny Marwah is the authorized signatory of the firm. Sh. Su
SECTION 3 OF PMLA HAS A WIDER REACH AND ANYBODY WHO IS ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN KNOWINGLY ASSISTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY PROCESS OR ACTIVITY WITH THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME INCLUDING ASSISTING IN THE....
The court held that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. The court also held that the twin conditions under Section 4....
The offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA includes any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projec....
(1) Bail application – For the purpose of considering application for bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned and evidence need not be weighed meticulously, tentative finding....
The court emphasized that bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, granting bail under PMLA, 2002 due to lack of evidence and procedural violations during arrest.
The court ruled that even significant trial delays do not automatically warrant bail in economic offences, especially when credible evidence suggests potential witness tampering and evidence destruct....
The court ruled that the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution outweigh the stringent conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Launder....
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
