Delhi excise policy case: Supreme Court grants bail to AAP communications in-charge Vijay Nair

“This cannot be a mode of punishment without trial being commenced. The universal proposition of bail being the rule and jail being the exception will be entirely defeated if the petitioner is kept in custody as an undertrial for such a long duration when the sentence can only be 7 years maximum in the evening of conviction”.

Appearing for Nair, Senior Advocate A M Singhvi said his case is squarely covered by the SC decision granting bail to former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia. Singhvi pointed out that in the Sisodia case, the court granted the AAP leader relief on the ground of the delay in trial and added that it will apply to Nair too. The ED is adding so many witnesses and examining them will take time, he pointed out.

Singhvi said that the petitioner had already spent 672 days in custody. The senior counsel also referred to the judgement granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the PMLA case against him in the Delhi excise policy case and said all those who according to ED were the masterminds had already been given bail. He pointed out that ED had only termed him an important player and not the mastermind and added that the question of incarceration without trial is the same in all these cases.

Opposing the bail plea, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju said Nair was the media in charge of the AAP and had nothing to do with excise. Yet he was roped in as a middleman for taking kickbacks from those who were given licences, Raju said adding that his case will not be covered under Section 45 of PMLA.

The senior law officer also submitted that even before the charges were framed, Vijay Nair was delaying the process before the trial court by filing multiple applications for verifying documents not even relied upon by the prosecution. He added the accused was resorting to such delaying tactics as he is fully aware there will be no merit and he may not succeed. “They are delaying and then piggybacking on Article 21 to seek bail,” said Raju who also sought to draw a distinction with the case of Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha who too secured bail in the case.

In its order, the Supreme Court said that materials on the record show that Dinesh Arora, who was arraigned as an accused had turned approver and his 12th statement, implicated Nair but not his earlier ones. The bench said ED had filed nine prosecution complaints and during this while, the accused has been in custody for about 23 months for the offence for which the maximum sentence is 7 years.

The bench said while ED assured on October 30, 2023, that the trial would be concluded in eight months, it named as many as 40 people as accused and about 350 witnesses were to be examined. The bench said in the Manish Sisodia judgement, the court had underlined the right to speedy trial and that fundamental rights cannot be subject to statutory Section 45 of PMLA that places restrictions on bail.