IN CBI/56/2022 - RA, District Court, Delhi-  Delhi Excise Policy controversy -- Delhi Court grants bail to Chanpreet Singh, Arvind Kumar Singh saying they neither derived undue financial benefits out of framing of said policy nor had paid any bribe to any politicians but were working as conduits vis-a-vis transfer of over Rs 44 crore from Delhi to Goa through hawala channels in connection with election expenses
M.K. Nagpal , Special Judge (PC Act) [22.07.2023]

Read Order: Chanpreet Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 24, 2023: A Delhi Court has granted bail to the two accused, Chanpreet Singh and Arvind Kumar Singh, who were arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case related to irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.

The Special Judge (PC Act), M.K. Nagpal held that “it will also be a matter of trial as to whether or not their above acts can be considered or held to be a part of the above criminal conspiracy entered into between the other accused persons in relation to formulation or implementation of the above excise policy or these may be considered as acts relating to different activities in respect to above bribe or kickback amount or proceeds of crime generated through this case and coming within the purview of Section 3 of the PMLA or these acts were actually done or performed by them without any criminal intents or attracting any criminal implications.”

In the matter at hand, the CBI had registered an FIR and chargesheet against 16 accused persons for commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B read with 477A Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) as well as substantive offences thereof and it was registered in relation to irregularities committed in framing and implementation of excise policy of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). Manish Sisodia, the then Dy. Chief Minister as well as Excise Minister of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Delhi and 14 other persons/entities were specifically named as accused in FIR of the case.

As per allegations made in the present case by CBI, while the above excise policy of GNCTD was still at the stage of formulation or drafting, a criminal conspiracy was hatched between various accused persons and in furtherance of that conspiracy, some loopholes and lacunae were intentionally left out or created in the policy and the same were meant to be utilised or exploited later on. A huge amount of money was alleged to have been paid as advance kickbacks or bribe to the politicians and other public servants in Delhi and as involved in above conspiracy for the said purpose and it was paid by the South liquor lobby. It was alleged that against these kickbacks and bribe, certain acts were done to favour and some undue pecuniary benefits were extended to the conspirators involved in liquor trade in Delhi. It had been specifically alleged that kickbacks of around Rs. 90,100 crores in advance were paid through hawala channels to some politicians of the ruling AAP in Delhi and the other public servants involved in conspiracy by some persons in liquor business from South India, and the policy was manipulated and drafted in such a way so as to secure monopolisation and cartelisation of liquor business in Delhi and to derive undue benefits therefrom for the conspirators and for achieving this objective, besides effecting some other changes, the profit margin of wholesalers was increased from 5% to 12% for siphoning off 6% out of this 12% profit margin for payment of bribe or repayment of the above advance kickbacks to the South lobby.

It had also been found during investigation that these kickbacks were being returned back to the South lobby later on, out of profit margins of the wholesalers holding L1 licenses through different modes, like issuance of excess credit notes, bank transfers and outstanding amounts left in accounts of the companies controlled by some conspirators from South lobby, which were not meant to be recovered from them. It had further been alleged that as a result of the above criminal conspiracy, a cartel was formed or permitted to be formed between three components of the said policy, i.e. liquor manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, by violating provisions and against the spirit of said policy and all the conspirators played active roles to achieve illegal objectives of the said criminal conspiracy and it resulted in huge losses to the Government exchequer and undue pecuniary benefits to the public servants and other accused involved in the said conspiracy. Investigation was stated to have revealed that two representatives of South lobby were given stake of 65% in the wholesale firm created in the name of M/S Indospirits and this entity was granted wholesale license to sell the liquor brands of one of the big liquor manufacturers of the country namely M/S Pernod Ricard. Various other entities relating to some of the co-accused had also been found to be a part of the above conspiracy and cartel and the mechanism brought into existence for repayment of the above kickbacks.

Chanpreet Singh and Arvind Kumar Singh were charged through the second supplementary chargesheet. Their role, as per the CBI, was limited to transferring some amount of kickbacks from Delhi to Goa in connection with AAP’s election expenses vis-a-vis Goa Assembly Elections, 2022.  It had also been specifically alleged that as per investigation conducted till date, an amount of Rs. 44,54,22,500 was sent from Delhi to Goa through the above illegal channels, however, the applicants were shown to have been connected with a part or portion of the said amount and not the above entire amount of Rs. 44,54,22,500/.

The Court observed that their role was minor compared to other accused who were involved in the actual formulation of the excise policy and some of the other accused with similar or greater roles were not arrested. 

It was stated that no role was played by the two applicant in the formulation of the above excise policy and there were also not found connected with implementation of the said policy in any manner and none of them was or was even having any stake or interest in the liquor business in Delhi or in any other part of the country. Further, they were also not being alleged to have been a part of the South lobby, which allegedly paid the above advance kickbacks to the accused Vijay Nair, Manish Sisodia or any other politician of AAP, in connection with formulation of the said policy or for insertion of any favourable clauses in the policy. Hence, none of the two applicants was even alleged to have been present in any of the meetings that took place between the accused persons or members of the above criminal conspiracy in connection with formulation or implementation of the said policy.

Thus, it was the admitted case of CBI that none of them had derived any undue financial benefits out of framing or working of the said policy nor had paid any bribe or kickbacks to any accused or politicians or other public servants of AAP and GNCTD in connection with the said policy. It was also the admitted case of prosecution that none of them had even received any kickbacks or bribe for themselves as the allegations being made against them were only that they were involved in receiving or handling some of the bribe or kickback amounts.

Thus, as per admitted case of prosecution set up on the basis of second supplementary chargesheet filed qua both these applicants, the Court stated that they were working as conduits only in. transfer/transmission or receiving of some of the amounts, out of the total amount of Rs. 44,54,22,500/, transferred from Delhi to Goa through hawala channels in connection with election expenses of AAP..

The Court also noted that the offences alleged against Chanpreet Singh and Arvind Kumar Singh carried a maximum punishment of 7 years, which was not severe enough to warrant their continued detention. There were also no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused would abscond or interfere with the Trial. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court granted bail to both accused persons on furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 1 lakh each.