Delhi Court rejects Vijay Nair’s request for default bail in the Excise Policy Case

On Thursday, the Delhi Rouse Avenue Court denied Vijay Nair’s request for default bail in a case involving money laundering and suspected irregularities in the Excise Policy (since abolished) case.
Vijay Nair is the former CEO of the entertainment and event management company Only Much Louder and the former Media and Communication In-charge of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Nair was represented by Senior Attorney Rebecca John, who claimed that although the Supplemental Prosecution Complaint was filed by ED within the allotted 60 days, the investigation into him had not yet been fully completed. As a result, the Supplemental Complaint can only be described as a piecemeal and incomplete complaint or chargesheet that was filed by the investigating agency in an effort to thwart the applicant’s right to be released on bail,

The right to default bail is a legal privilege granted to an accused under the aforementioned laws, and Nair’s attorney stated that it cannot be allowed to be denied or thwarted by the investigative agency in the way that it has been in this particular instance.
It was further argued that the very foundation of criminal jurisprudence would be destroyed if the investigating agencies were allowed to file fragmented or incomplete chargesheets or prosecution complaints to undermine the right to statutory bail that accrues to an accused under the aforementioned provisions. Section 173 Cr.P.C. requires the investigating agencies to file chargesheets or prosecution complaints against the accused only when the investigation in a particular case is complete.
When arguing against the default bail request, the ED brought up maintainability issues and said that the accused had previously brought up the issue of an incomplete or fragmentary chargesheet before the High Court in his release request.
The accused should approach the same Judge or Bench of the High Court with a request for consideration of the said point or ground and for the passing of a specific order on the basis of pleadings contained in the said request application or submission, according to Special Judge MK Nagpal, who noted that given the factual and legal discussion, this court is not competent or the appropriate forum to consider the ground for default bail of the accused.
With the aforementioned observations and conclusions, the Court rejected the accused Vijay Nair’s current motion as unmaintainable before this court.
If the investigating agency does not finish its investigation within the allotted period, the accused individual has the option of default bail. A recent Supreme Court decision on default bail has generated discussion.
Regular bail had already been refused to Nair by the trial court in February. Nair claimed earlier in his bail request that he was merely in charge of the AAP’s media and communications and had no involvement in the creation, formulation, or execution of the excise policy, and that he was being “victimized” because of his political connection.
Nair has argued that the accusations made against him are untrue, false, and without merit while contesting the trial court’s ruling in the Delhi High Court.
Given that the special court was scheduled to issue orders regarding his bail request in the corruption case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), he claimed that the ED’s arrest of him on November 13 of last year was entirely unlawful and “appears to be motivated by extraneous considerations.”
Earlier, the ED stated that Manish Sisodia assisted Vijay Nair’s illicit actions in its chargesheet against the former deputy chief minister of Delhi. The ED previously informed the court that Vijay Nair had accepted payments from a group known as the south group totaling at least Rs 100 crore on behalf of AAP leaders.
The ED and the CBI claimed that improper actions were taken while changing the excise policy, that license holders received improper favors, that the license price was waived or lowered, and that the L-1 license was prolonged without the consent of the appropriate authorities. A business entity is eligible for an L-1 license if it has at least five years of experience in the wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages in any state.