Sat. Feb 24th, 2024

The Delhi High Court on Thursday prolonged until January 8, interim bail of Hyderabad-based liquor businessman Arun Ramchandra Pillai, who’s an accused within the now-scrapped Delhi excise coverage case.

Pillai, who has sought reduction to take care of his ailing spouse in Hyderabad, was produced earlier than Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on expiry of his previously-extended interim bail.

It has been submitted that issues developed after the discharge of his spouse from hospital.

In November final 12 months, the court docket had granted two weeks’ interim bail to Pillai who was arrested on March 6.

Appearing for Pillai earlier than Special Judge MK Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court, advocate Nitesh Rana had claimed that his consumer’s spouse was to endure a surgical process as she was extraordinarily sick. He added that she had nobody to take care of her as she lived alone.

Earlier, the ED had filed a reply earlier than the Delhi High Court on Pillai’s bail plea. It additionally filed a response on one other petition terming his arrest as unlawful, and violative of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Citing the Supreme Court mandate of offering grounds for arrest as obligatory and of utmost significance, within the petition, Pillai had said that no grounds for arrest, both oral or written, had been ever supplied to him, as was required below Section 19(1) of the PMLA.

His plea additional said that not one of the impugned remand orders file any satisfaction of whether or not the ED had supplies on file to type “reasons to believe” that Pillai was responsible of an offence below the PMLA.

“It is pertinent to mention that the purported facts that have been asserted by the respondent agency (ED) in the remand application were asserted even in the first prosecution complaint filed, ” the plea learn.

“The petitioner/applicant has appeared before the ED at least on nine occasions after the filing of first prosecution complaint and at least on three occasions after filing of the second prosecution complaint on which occasions the petitioner/applicant was never arrested by the respondent agency, ” it said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *