Excise policy case: Court junks bail plea of Brindco spirits owner Dhall
Tanveer Ahmed Mir, counsel of the accused, argued that because the Enforcement Directorate had “failed to complete its investigation”, his client was bound to get a default bail under section 167(2) of the CrPC.
2 min read
Special Judge M K Nagpal at Rouse Avenue noted that the argument forwarded by Dhall was “devoid of any merits” and merited a dismissal of his bail plea. (express photo) A Delhi court dismissed the bail plea of Amandeep Singh Dhall, owner of Brindco spirits and an accused in the Delhi excise policy case, stating that just because further investigation is pending doesn’t mean the accused is bound to get default bail.
Dhall, owner/controller of M/S Brindco Sales Pvt. Ltd, which held the wholesale licence of M/S DIAGEO (M/S United Spirits Ltd.) for sale of liquor in Delhi, is alleged to be a part of a criminal conspiracy and cartel related to the alleged excise policy scam.
Tanveer Ahmed Mir, counsel of the accused, argued that because the Enforcement Directorate had “failed to complete its investigation”, his client was bound to get a default bail under section 167(2) of the CrPC.
Special Judge M K Nagpal at Rouse Avenue noted that the argument forwarded by Dhall was “devoid of any merits” and merited a dismissal of his bail plea.
The court held that money laundering was a serious and complex economic offence which can “destroy the economic fabric of the country”. It also held that such a complex investigation could not have been completed in 60 days and merely because further investigation is pending, it doesn’t amount to default bail.
You May Like
Photos
