The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to grant an early hearing to businessman Amandeep Singh Dhall’s bail plea in the Delhi excise policy scam case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) [Amandeep Singh Dhall v Central Bureau of Investigation].
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan stated that the Court cannot bypass its standard procedures and prioritize certain cases over others, especially when there are many underprivileged litigants awaiting justice.
“We have to think about poor litigants as well. We cannot bypass the Supreme Court’s procedure or hear your case at midnight,” Justice Kant remarked in response to Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was representing Dhall. Singhvi had sought an earlier hearing, arguing that Dhall had been in custody longer than other accused in the case who had already received bail.
Ultimately, the Court decided to list the matter, including Dhall’s application for interim bail, for the second week of October.
Dhall, who was arrested by the CBI on April 18, 2023, is the Managing Director of Brindco Sales Private Limited, a wholesale liquor licensee. He is accused of playing a key role in the formulation of the Delhi liquor policy and maintaining close contact with co-accused Vijay Nair. Dhall allegedly arranged meetings between Nair and various liquor manufacturers during the policy’s development.
Earlier, Dhall’s bail plea was rejected by the trial court on June 9, 2023, and by the Delhi High Court on June 4, 2023, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court had noted serious allegations against Dhall, including that he and his father allegedly paid a ₹5 crore bribe to an Enforcement Directorate (ED) official to exclude their names from the case.
Recently, the Supreme Court granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in connection with the same case. In those rulings, the Court criticized the tendency of trial and High Courts to routinely deny bail in criminal cases, emphasizing that bail should be the norm rather than the exception.
You said:
