Excise policy: No bail to Hyderabad businessman; genuine case, says court

The agency alleged that he was a part of the South Group which paid bribes to “exploit loopholes” in the excise policy to “gain uninhibited access” to various retail zones.

“… this court is, prima facie, of the view that there is a genuine case made out by the investigating agency before this court showing active involvement of the applicant in commission of the alleged offence of money laundering and thus this court is not able to arrive at any finding contrary to the said view. This court also fails to accept the submission made by Ld. Senior Counsel representing the applicant that his arrest in the present case was not legal or justified, when the evidence and material collected during the course of investigation speaks volumes of his involvement in commission of the alleged offence of money laundering and his association with the other conspirators,” the Rouse Avenue court said.

ED, during its arguments, alleged that the bribe was paid to senior politicians by the South Group in return for control of liquor zones. The bribes were paid back out of the profit margins of wholesalers through bank transfers and excess credit notes, the ED said.

Members of the South Group were also allegedly present in meetings where formulation and execution of the excise policy was discussed, the agency added.

Pillai and other co-accused gave “self-incriminatory” statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, which pointed to their “active role” in payments of bribes and their repayments, ED told the court. Advocate Manu Sharma, who is representing Pillai, said that these statements were forcefully extracted from the accused and called the evidence “not substantial”.

Denying Pillai bail, special judge M K Nagpal said in the order that the evidence provides “reasonable ground for believing” that a genuine case exists. He also said that insufficient evidence to convict a person isn’t necessarily a ground for bail, stating that conviction, bail and appreciation of evidence are distinct and should be judged using different yardsticks.

The court said that it was not required to prove the charge “beyond reasonable doubt”, leaving the same to the trial. The court said just the existence of a genuine case was enough to deny the plaintiff bail.