Delhi HC grants bail to Sameer Mahendru and Chanpreet Singh in excise policy case

New Delhi [India], September 9 (ANI): Delhi High Court on Monday granted regular bail to liquor businessman Sameer Mahendru and AAP Volunteer Chanpreet Singh in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy Case.
Sameer Mahendru is the owner of Indo Sprit. He was in custody since September 2022.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna granted bail to Sameer Mahendru and Chanpreet Singh.
While granting bail to Sameer Mahendru, Justice Krishan said, " Considering that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 28.09.2022, i.e., for almost two years, and with a little hope of speedy completion of trial, he would be deprived of his right to liberty under Article 21 and is therefore, entitled to the grant of bail."
"It may also be observed that the antecedents of the applicant, who has no previous involvement, it cannot be said that he is of flight risk or is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses since most of the evidence is essentially documentary in nature," Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said in the order passed on September 9.
Mahendru has been admitted to bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10. lakh and two sureties of like amount.
While granting bail to Mahendru, the court imposed conditions, including that the applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10-11 AM. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with the witnesses.
Mahendru moved a plea seeking regular bail in money laundering case. He was arrested on 28.09.2022 and was in custody for more than 18 months.
The Central Bureau of Intelligence (CBI) had registered an FIR on 17.08.2022 under Sections 120-B read with 477-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860, and also under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC)Act, 1988.
It was submitted that thereafter, the ED had registered a case on 22.08.2022, and the Applicant was arrested on 28.09.2022 in total derogation of the procedure established under Section 19 PMLA.
It was contended that the ED had filed an incomplete prosecution complaint before the Trial Court on 26.11.2022 arraying the applicant as accused No. 1.
The applicant moved an application on 22.12.2022 before the trial court to seek regular bail. However, the same, along with the four other accused persons who had moved separate bail applications, have been rejected vide common order dated 16.02.2023.
Mahandru had moved a second bail application before the trial court in view of the various changes in the circumstances and elapse of a substantial period of time, but the same was also dismissed on 24.02.2024.
It was argued by the ED that the accused are indulging in tactics to delay the trial by moving multiple applications, but this aspect can also be considered in the case of Manish Sisodia, wherein it has been specifically observed that though the pleas are being filed on behalf of the accused persons, the conduct of the accused cannot be termed vexatious or intended to delay.
The High Court rejected the contention and said, "They were merely exercising their rights of fair Trial by seeking the documents relied and un-relied by the prosecution for their defence."
"It cannot be said that there is any delay which is attributable to the applicant; rather it is the complexity of the matter, voluminous records and the number of witnesses that are required to be considered in the Trial, which would take a reasonable time," the HC held. (ANI)