Excise policy case: HC refuses further extension to Hyd bizman Arun Pillai

New Delhi, Jan 22 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the interim bail granted to Hyderabad-based businessman Arun Ramachandra Pillai in connection with the money laundering case linked to alleged liquor policy scam.

Pillai had received interim bail on December 28, citing his wife's medical condition following surgery.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while noting the medical needs of Pillai's wife, granted a three-day extension to facilitate his return to the national capital and arrange for an attendant if needed.

The court directed Pillai to surrender before the jail authority on January 24 and made it clear that future applications for the extension of interim bail on similar grounds would not be entertained.

“The interim bail is for the purpose of any emergency for a short period and cannot be extended for a long duration,” the court clarified.

Pillai had sought an extension, stating that his wife required a permanent attendant for six weeks due to the PRP Steroid Procedure she underwent.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the extension, saying that there was no urgency for a permanent attendant and that the wife only needed the PRP injection.

The court, after reviewing medical records indicating the administration of PRP injections to Pillai's wife, found no grounds for further extension of interim bail.

While noting the medical situation, the court said that Pillai had been on interim bail since December 18, 2023. As a result, he was directed to surrender on January 24, as per the previous order.

However, the court granted a three-day extension for Pillai to travel back to Delhi and arrange for an attendant if required, maintaining the same terms and conditions.

Pillai, had sought relief to look after his ailing wife in Hyderabad.

It was earlier submitted that complications developed after the discharge of his wife from hospital.

In November last year, the court had granted two weeks’ interim bail to Pillai who was arrested on March 6.

Appearing for Pillai before Special Judge M.K. Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court, advocate Nitesh Rana had claimed that his client's wife was to undergo a surgical procedure as she was extremely sick. He added that she had no one to look after her as she lived alone.

Earlier, the ED had filed a reply before the Delhi High Court on Pillai's bail plea. It also filed a response on another petition terming his arrest as illegal, and violative of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Citing the Supreme Court mandate of providing grounds for arrest as mandatory and of utmost importance, in the petition, Pillai had stated that no grounds for arrest, either oral or written, were ever provided to him, as was required under Section 19(1) of the PMLA.

His plea further stated that none of the impugned remand orders record any satisfaction of whether the ED had materials on record to form "reasons to believe" that Pillai was guilty of an offence under 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 read.

"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 stated.