NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea preferred by Vijay Nair, businessman and Aam Aadmi Party’s communication in charge against Delhi HCs order of adjourning his plea seeking bail in a money laundering case registered from the alleged Delhi excise policy scam till May 19, 2023.
Nair and four other accused’s Sameer Mahendra, Sarath Reddy, Abhishek Boinpally and Benoy Babu were denied bail by the trial court on February 16, 2023. They were denied bail by the court noting that it was not possible to rule that the accused would not tamper with the evidence as the further investigation was still pending.
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud Justice PS Narasimha however granted Nair the liberty to approach the Delhi HC judge for an early listing of his bail plea.
“Having regard to the above fact we aren’t inclined to entertain the plea but move the HC for an earlier listing of the bail,” the bench said in its order.
For Nair, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi had submitted that Nair had got bail in the CBI case on November 14, 2022 and the sessions court had rejected his bail in the ED case registered against him after two months. He added that although notice was issued by the HC judge Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma on April 12 the plea wherein HC sought EDs response was adjourned for May 19, 2023.
ALSO READ | Delhi Excise policy case: ED arrests Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally in money laundering case
“The problem is that he (the judge) has multiple jurisdictions and he sits after lunch,” Justice PS Narasimha remarked. “We’ll give you the liberty to move the court for an earlier date,” the CJI said.
Nair had approached SC against HCs April 12 order. Nair in his plea before HC had said that he was only AAPs media and communication in charge and was not involved in either drafting, framing or implementing the policy in any manner.
ALSO READ | No bail to Vijay Nair, four others in liquor scam: Delhi Court
He added that he was being victimised for his political affiliation. He had also contended that the trial court had refused to grant him the relief “wrongfully and illegally” and that the allegations levelled against him were wrong, false and had no bias.
