HC Rejects Bail Plea of Petitioner Arrested by CBI for Alleged Conspiracy to Give a Bribe of Rs. 100 Crores to AAP

Case Details: Abhishek Boinpally v. Directorate Of Enforcement - [2023] 157 taxmann.com 318 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Dinesh Kumar Sharma
  • Vikram Chaudhari, Sr. Adv., Shri Singh, Sumer Singh Boparai, Sidhant Saraswat, Gurfateh Singh Khosa, Varun Bhati, Prabhneer Swaini, Suyash Goverdhan & Ms Srishti Khanna, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Vivek Gurnani, Kartik Sabharwal & Baibhav, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the allegations against the petitioner were that he was a key person involved in the conspiracy of giving bribes/kickbacks to the tune of Rs. 100 crore to AAP and a conspiracy was hatched by the petitioner and others to get undue benefits by circumventing provisions of the excise policy of GNCTD for the year 2021-22.

The Petitioner was, thus, arrested for an offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Thereafter, bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Petitioner filed an instant bail application before the High Court. It was noted that the petitioner himself, in his statement admitted that he attended the meeting where discussions were held regarding the formation of a partnership in retail zones. It was further noted that he was also handling operations of five retail zones owned by co-accused.

High Court Held

Further, the High Court observed that on basis of perusal of statement, it would indicate that petitioner was interacting with all other accused persons and was, thus, part of conspiracy. Also, the excise policy was formed with ill objective of illegally earning money and as per petitioner’s statement under section 50, petitioner was apparently an important player of such conspiracy and had also acted in money Laundering.

Since there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence corroborating fact in form of statements of some witnesses and accused and also Whatsapp chats between different persons, it could not be said that petitioner was not guilty of such offence. Thus, the High Court held that the bail application of petitioner was to be rejected.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Union of India v. Thamisharasi [1995] 4 SCC 190 (para 14)
  • Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India [2022] 140 taxmann.com 610 (SC) (para 25.1)
  • Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [2004] 7 SCC 528 (para 28)
  • Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [2013] 7 SCC 439 (para 29)
  • Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI [2013] 7 SCC 466 (para 30).