‘Pre-trial detention can’t be so long’: SC bail to excise accused | India News
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Benoy Babu, regional manager of liquor manufacturing company Pernod Ricard, in a money laundering case linked to the Delhi excise scam, turning down the plea of Enforcement Directorate that he should also be denied bail like Manish Sisodia and be given liberty to seek bail if trial is not completed within six months.
Noting that the accused has been under incarceration for the last 13 months and trial has not yet commenced, a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said that a person cannot be kept in pre-trial detention for a long time and it was a fit case to grant bail. “This is not proper. You cannot keep people in pre-trial detention for so long,” the bench said.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Babu, submitted that unlike other accused his client was not an accused in a corruption case and that he, in fact, was CBI’s prosecution witness in the case. He said that there was apparent contradiction between the ED and the CBI case regarding the role of his client, who met key accused Vijay Nair for the first time only after the policy was changed. He said that ED case is “completely bogus”.
Salve said that Babu was just an employee of the company and he was neither on the board of the company nor part of the decision-making process of the company and he, having already spent 13 months in jail, should be given bail as charges have not been framed in the case. He said the apex court order on Sisodia bail plea works in favour of his client.
After a brief hearing the bench granted relief to him.
“Trial has not commenced in the sense that charges have not been framed… Having regard to the aforesaid factum, including the period of incarceration already suffered by the appellant, we allow the present appeal and direct that he be released on bail,” the court ordered.
The Delhi High Court had in July rejected Babu’s bail plea.
The Supreme Court on October 30 rejected bail plea of another accused and Delhi’s former deputy CM Sisodia in corruption and money laundering cases pertaining to change in Delhi’s liquor policy allegedly involving payment of bribes of Rs 338 crore by wholesale distributors.
Noting that the prosecution had assured it to complete the trial within eight months, the court had opened a small window for him to seek bail after three months if the trial proceedings get delayed and the assurance given to court is not honoured.
Excise case accused claims contradictions in ED, CBI allegations
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Pernod Ricard official Benoy Babu, submitted that unlike other accused, his client was not an accused in a corruption case and that he, in fact, was CBI’s prosecution witness in the case. He said there was apparent contradiction between the ED and the CBI case regarding the role of his client who met key accused Vijay Nair for the first time only after the excise policy was changed. He said the ED case is “completely bogus”.
Salve said Babu was just an employee of the company and he was neither on the board of the company nor a part of the firm’s decision-making process and he, having already spent 13 months in jail, should be given bail as charges have still not framed in the case. He said the apex court order on former deputy CM Manish Sisodia’s bail plea works in favour of his client.
After a brief hearing, the bench granted relief to him. “Trial has not commenced in the sense that charges have not been framed… Having regard to the aforesaid factum, including the period of incarceration already suffered by the appellant, we allow the present appeal and direct that he be released on bail,” the court ordered.
Delhi high court had in July rejected Babu’s bail plea, after which he moved SC.
The Supreme Court on October 30 rejected the bail plea of another accused and Sisodia in corruption and money laundering cases pertaining to changes in Delhi’s liquor policy allegedly involving payment of bribes of Rs 338 crore by wholesale distributors.
Noting that the prosecution had assured completion of the trial within eight months, the court had opened a small window for him to seek bail after three months if the trial proceedings get delayed and the assurance given to court is not honoured. It also allowed him to seek interim bail in case of ill health and medical emergency arising from the illness of his wife.
Noting that the accused has been under incarceration for the last 13 months and trial has not yet commenced, a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said that a person cannot be kept in pre-trial detention for a long time and it was a fit case to grant bail. “This is not proper. You cannot keep people in pre-trial detention for so long,” the bench said.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Babu, submitted that unlike other accused his client was not an accused in a corruption case and that he, in fact, was CBI’s prosecution witness in the case. He said that there was apparent contradiction between the ED and the CBI case regarding the role of his client, who met key accused Vijay Nair for the first time only after the policy was changed. He said that ED case is “completely bogus”.
Salve said that Babu was just an employee of the company and he was neither on the board of the company nor part of the decision-making process of the company and he, having already spent 13 months in jail, should be given bail as charges have not been framed in the case. He said the apex court order on Sisodia bail plea works in favour of his client.
After a brief hearing the bench granted relief to him.
“Trial has not commenced in the sense that charges have not been framed… Having regard to the aforesaid factum, including the period of incarceration already suffered by the appellant, we allow the present appeal and direct that he be released on bail,” the court ordered.
The Delhi High Court had in July rejected Babu’s bail plea.
The Supreme Court on October 30 rejected bail plea of another accused and Delhi’s former deputy CM Sisodia in corruption and money laundering cases pertaining to change in Delhi’s liquor policy allegedly involving payment of bribes of Rs 338 crore by wholesale distributors.
Noting that the prosecution had assured it to complete the trial within eight months, the court had opened a small window for him to seek bail after three months if the trial proceedings get delayed and the assurance given to court is not honoured.
Excise case accused claims contradictions in ED, CBI allegations
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Pernod Ricard official Benoy Babu, submitted that unlike other accused, his client was not an accused in a corruption case and that he, in fact, was CBI’s prosecution witness in the case. He said there was apparent contradiction between the ED and the CBI case regarding the role of his client who met key accused Vijay Nair for the first time only after the excise policy was changed. He said the ED case is “completely bogus”.
Salve said Babu was just an employee of the company and he was neither on the board of the company nor a part of the firm’s decision-making process and he, having already spent 13 months in jail, should be given bail as charges have still not framed in the case. He said the apex court order on former deputy CM Manish Sisodia’s bail plea works in favour of his client.
After a brief hearing, the bench granted relief to him. “Trial has not commenced in the sense that charges have not been framed… Having regard to the aforesaid factum, including the period of incarceration already suffered by the appellant, we allow the present appeal and direct that he be released on bail,” the court ordered.
Delhi high court had in July rejected Babu’s bail plea, after which he moved SC.
The Supreme Court on October 30 rejected the bail plea of another accused and Sisodia in corruption and money laundering cases pertaining to changes in Delhi’s liquor policy allegedly involving payment of bribes of Rs 338 crore by wholesale distributors.
Noting that the prosecution had assured completion of the trial within eight months, the court had opened a small window for him to seek bail after three months if the trial proceedings get delayed and the assurance given to court is not honoured. It also allowed him to seek interim bail in case of ill health and medical emergency arising from the illness of his wife.
