New Delhi [India], June 9 : The Rouse Avenue Court on Friday dismissed the bail petitions moved by Delhi-based businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) cases related to the Liquor policy case.
Dhall is an executive director of Brindco Sales Private Limited and was arrested on March 1, 2023, by ED and in April by CBI in the case.
The Special Judge MK Nagpal while passing the order in stated, "Prima facie evidence leads this court to form an opinion that the allegations made by prosecution against the applicant are
serious in nature and he is not entitled to be released on bail even in this scheduled offences case of CBI."
Amandeep Singh Dhall was arrested on March 1, 2023, by the ED under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the Excise case.
According to the ED, Aman Singh Dhall, a Delhi-based businessman has allegedly conspired with other persons and is actively involved in the formation of policy and facilitating kickbacks to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and its recoupment by the South Group through various means.
According to the CBI, during the course of searches conducted at the premises of applicant/ Amandeep Dhall on August 19, 2022, certain incriminating documents relating to the excise policy have been seized and these documents duly show the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offences of CBI case and hence, though he joined the investigation of this case on 10 different occasions and also provided some information and documents during the initial investigation, but since he failed to give any satisfactory replies or explanations about the oral and other documentary evidence which surfaced on record showing his involvement in the above conspiracy and cartel, he has rightly been arrested in this case and is, thus, not entitled to be released on bail.
The ED and the CBI have alleged that irregularities were committed while modifying the Excise Policy, undue favours were extended to licence holders, the licence fee was waived or reduced and the L-1 licence was extended without the competent authority's approval.
The beneficiaries diverted "illegal" gains to the accused officials and made false entries in their books of account to evade detection.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor