Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Abhishek Boinpally – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Bail Appln. 906 of 2023 & Cr.M.(BAIL) 398 of 2023
Decided On : 03-07-2023
BAIL - PMLA - SECTION 3 - MONEY LAUNDERING - SECTION 45 - TWIN CONDITIONS - SECTION 439 CRPC - LIMITATION - ECONOMIC OFFENCES - SECTION 50 PMLA - ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS - EVIDENTIARY VALUE - CONSPIRACY - EXCISE POLICY - KICKBACKS - RECOUPMENT - PROCEEDS OF CRIME - ROLE OF PETITIONER - FINDING OF TRIAL COURT - REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEF OF GUILT - BAIL APPLICATION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner Abhishek Boinpally was arrested for the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. The allegations against him were that he was part of a conspiracy to frame a new excise policy with malafide intention to recoup kickbacks received in advance from certain individuals and to further generate ill money from the liquor trade. He was also allegedly involved in the process or activity connected to the proceeds of crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was guilty of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. The court relied on the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, which are admissible evidence though their evidentiary value is to be seen after the trial. The court also took into account the seriousness and gravity of the allegations and the credible material on record.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. The court found 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 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail application.
JUDGMENT
INDEX
| S. No. | Particulars | Page No. |
| 1. | Factual Matrix | 2-14 |
| 2. | Submissions on behalf of Petitioner | 14-20 |
| 3. | Submissions on behalf of Respondent/ED | 20-24 |
| 4. | Finding and Analysis | 24-44 |
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
A. Factual Matrix
1. The present order shall dispose of the bail application no. 906/2023 of Abhishek Boinpally titled as "Abhishek Boinpally vs Directorate of Enforcement". The bail applications filed by petitioner Abhishek Boinpally was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, PC Act, CBI-09 vide order dated 16.02.2023.
2. 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. Sunny Marwah is also director in companies/firms being managed by family of Late Sh. Ponty Chadha. That Sh. Sunny Marwah is in close
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....
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.
(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 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 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 emphasized that for bail under PMLA, satisfaction of twin conditions is mandatory, confirming the need for reasonable grounds against guilt and potential for re-offense. Balancing the sever....
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
