New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned a hearing on a plea filed by former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) communications incharge Vijay Nair seeking bail in a money laundering case linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
A Bench presided over by Justice Hrishikesh Roy “reluctantly” deferred the proceedings after the counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) sought a week’s time to file a reply to Nair’s bail plea.
Deprecating the central agency’s request to adjourn the proceedings, the Bench, also comprising Justice SVN Bhatti, noted that the ED’s counsel has already entered appearance quite some time back but a counter affidavit has not been filed.
The matter is likely to be listed on September 2 for further hearing.
In the previous hearing, the top court issued a notice to the ED on Nair’s plea and asked the federal anti-money laundering agency to file its reply by August 27.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Nair, cited the judgment of the Supreme Court, which had allowed bail pleas of senior AAP leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the excise policy case on the ground of delay in commencement of trial.
Singhvi said that Nair, who has been granted bail in a corruption case but remains in custody in an ED case, suffered incarceration of nearly two years and completion of trial would take more time.
In July last year, a Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma of the Delhi High Court had denied bail to Nair. He had moved the Delhi HC challenging a trial court order rejecting his bail application.
Observing that the “allegations are quite serious”, Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court had denied bail to Nair and four others – Sameer Mahendru, Abhishek Boinpally, Sarath Chandra Reddy, and Benoy Babu.
The trial court held that there was enough incriminating evidence to show the entire “modus operandi” adopted by the accused persons for the commission of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
On the allegations and the role of Nair, it said, “Though he was only the media and communication incharge of AAP, it has been revealed during the investigation that he was actually representing the AAP and GNCTD in different meetings that took place with the stakeholders of 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 AAP, and once he was even alleged to have represented himself as an OSD in the Excise Department of GNCTD. Further, none from the government or AAP officially participated in these meetings.”
(IANS)
