Delhi excise policy case: Court dismisses bail pleas of AAP communication in-charge Vijay Nair, 4 others

On the allegations surrounding Nair, the court observed from the evidence placed by the ED that “he had in fact emerged as the sutradhar (string holder) of the entire criminal conspiracy that came into existence between various accused persons, some of whom are even yet to be identified, in connection with formulation and implementation of the above excise policy.”

“Though he was only the Media and Communication In-charge of the AAP, but it has been revealed during investigation of this case that he was actually representing the AAP and GNCTD in different meetings that took place with the stakeholders in liquor business… His participation in the meetings in this capacity is to be viewed in light of the facts that he was residing in the official accommodation allotted to a senior minister of the AAP and once he is even alleged to have represented himself as an OSD in the Excise Department of GNCTD and further that none from the Government or AAP officially participated in these meetings,” the order read.

The court also noted that “some evidence is also alleged to have been collected to show that certain amounts, though meagre, out of the above kickbacks were spent by him (Nair) towards election expenses in Goa”.

The court held that all the accused in this case can be “prosecuted in the scheduled offences (ED) case even if none of them happen to be a public servant as they all are alleged to have been a part of the said conspiracy”.

On arguments by defence counsel that the “individual proceeds of crime being attributed to the accused persons have been shown by the ED on a much higher side and even the amount of losses allegedly suffered by the government exchequer is alleged to be highly exaggerated,” the court said, “The same cannot be made a ground to enlarge the applicants on bail in this case under the PMLA where serious allegations are found to have been levelled against them of being part of a criminal conspiracy to bribe public servants in politics or otherwise and holding different offices and positions in Delhi”.

The defence counsel had argued that there is no evidence on record to show any meeting of minds or conspiracy hatched between the accused persons to pay the kickbacks. The court said this submission was “unacceptable in light of the oral and documentary evidence which has been brought on record by the ED against the accused persons and enough evidence is there to infer the existence of such a criminal conspiracy between the accused”.

The court noted that in this case, “apart from the statements of accused and witnesses, some documentary evidence in the form of WhatsApp chats, cell locations, record of bank transactions relating to transfer etc. of proceeds of crime, hotel meetings held between the accused at different places and some digital data and other records of the entities belonging to the accused persons is also there on record to substantiate” the allegations.

The court held that the “prosecution complaints filed against the accused persons by the ED cannot be held to be piecemeal complaints or chargesheets as the investigation qua all of them stands already completed” while also noting that “though some further investigation regarding role of other persons involved in commission of alleged offences and to trace out the complete trail of ill-gotten money is still kept pending.”

The court agreed that the accused persons may not be a flight risk and apprehensions of the agency that influencing witnesses may be taken care of by imposing certain conditions, it said that “it will not be possible for this court to hold that they will make no attempt to tamper with the evidence of this case”. The court said this considering the allegations “of tampering with evidence by way of destruction or change of their mobile phones” and allegations that Reddy destroyed digital evidence in this case.

The ED had alleged that the excise policy was “formulated with deliberate loopholes”, which “promoted cartel formations through the back door” to benefit AAP leaders.

In a statement, AAP said it “disagreed” with the court’s bail order passed, and that it will challenge it through an appeal. “The whole narrative of a scam taking place in the liquor policy is total sham and smacks of political vendetta. We respectfully disagree with the court’s bail order passed today and will be challenging it through an appeal. We have full faith in the judiciary and are confident that the courts will eventually prove that this case is nothing but a sham,” it said.