New Delhi: A Delhi court on Monday sought the response of Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the interim bail plea filed by Vijay Nair, former AAP communications in-charge, who is currently under arrest in connection with a money laundering case related to the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy case.
Special Judge MK Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Court issued notice to the ED, scheduling the matter for January 18.
Nair’s plea cites health concerns, claiming that he is suffering from various ailments.
The court has further asked the jail superintendent to provide the medical report of the applicant.
Nair had moved the Delhi High Court challenging trial court’s order denying him bail.
Judge Nagpal had refused to grant Nair the relief stating that the issue was already dealt with by the high court.
The high court had dismissed his application for grant of regular bail sought on the ground that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had filed an incomplete prosecution complaint in his case.
“… it is held that this court is not competent or the appropriate forum to consider the above point or ground for default bail of the accused and the appropriate course available to the accused is to approach the same Judge or Bench of the High Court with a request for consideration of the said point or ground,” the judge had said.
Earlier, observing that “allegations are quite serious”, judge Nagpal had denied bail to Nair and four others – Sameer Mahendru, Abhishek Boinpally, Sarath Chandra Reddy, and Benoy Babu.
He had held that there was enough incriminating evidence to show the entire “modus operandi” adopted by the accused persons for the commission of offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
On the allegations and role of Nair, the court had said: “Though he was only the media and communication in-charge of AAP, it has been revealed during the investigation of this case that he was actually representing the AAP and Delhi government in different meetings that took place with the stakeholders in liquor business at different places.
“His participation in the meetings in this capacity is to be viewed in light of the facts that he was residing in the official accommodation allotted to a senior Minister of the AAP and once he is even alleged to have represented himself as an OSD in the Excise Department of Delhi government, and further that none from the government or AAP officially participated in these meetings.”
The ED had registered its case based on the FIR lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
(IANS)
