Abhishek Boinpally v. Directorate of Enforcement

3. The role of the Petitioner has been discussed in detail in the complaint filed by ED and is not been discussed here for the sake of brevity.

4. Sh. Vikram Chaudhary, learned senior advocate along with Sh. Sumer Singh Boparai submitted that there is no proof of identification of proceeds of crime. It has been submitted that the allegations against petitioner are solely based on section 50 statement of Dinesh Arora and Arun Pillai and 3 calls between Mr. Dinesh Arora and Mr. Lupin (cousin of petitioner). It has been submitted that Arun Pillai has already retracted his statement by filing an application on 09.03.2023. It has also been submitted that the reliance on the statement of Dinesh Arora is also against the law, in view of illustration-B of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act which provides that the approvers testimony cannot be relied upon unless corroborated in material particulars. It has further been submitted that Mr. Dinesh Arora has not provided any evidence like transaction slips/notes/diary/entries etc. to corroborate his statement.

5. Learned senior counsel further submitted that reliance on 3 calls made between Dinesh Arora and Lupin in the absence of transcripts to alleged transfer of Rs. 30 crores is misplaced. It has been submitted that Lupin has denied meeting Dinesh Arora or even talking to him.

6. Learned senior counsel submitted that even as per the statement of Dinesh Arora upon receiving these calls he used to note down the number on a piece of paper and hand over the same to one Rajesh or Sudhir. However, no such paper has been recovered. It has been submitted that there is no evidence to show any Hawala transaction and not even a single Hawala operator has been examined or identified by ED.

7. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in one of statement Dinesh Arora identifies one Rajesh Sharma an alleged accomplice of Vijay Nair who used to assist in Hawala operations. However, after the CDR of one Rajesh Joshi was shown, Dinesh Arora conveniently stated that Rajesh Joshi was actually accomplice and he had mistakenly named Rajesh Sharma. It has been submitted that therefore the statement of Dinesh Arora lacks credibility. It is further been submitted that similar allegations of transferring money from Dinesh Arora to Vijay Nair were leveled against one Rajesh Joshi on the basis of similar statements. The trial court rejected such oral statements and granted bail to Rajesh Joshi as there was no independent and cogent evidence against him on record. Learned senior counsel further submitted that petitioner Abhishek Boinpally and Mr. Gautam Mootha had an existing business relationship and were family friends. It has been submitted that Mr. Gautam Mootha and his companies had been receiving advances of big loans which they used to return time to time. It has been submitted that the loan/investment of Rs. 6.53 crores was advanced by the petitioner to Mr. Gautam Mootha between November 2020 to November 2021 and thus the period of loan/investment proceeds are alleged to be the generation of POC. It has further been submitted that the payment of Rs. 3.85 Crores made by Mr. Gautam Mootha to the petitioner is the partial repayment of loan/investment. The source from which the repayment was made by Mr. Gautam Mootha is irrelevant as far as the petitioner is concerned. It has been submitted in the absence of any knowledge the use of Rs.

3.85 crores to purchase shares of Zeus Networking private limited cannot be called projecting tainted money as untainted.

8. Learned senior counsel submitted that allegation of the ED regarding investment in ZNPL is also totally misconceived. It has been submitted that the CDG Broadcasting was the holding company of ZNPL. Petitioner desired to invest and purchase ZNPL and payments for purchasing ZNPL were made to CDG Broadcasting to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs and 60 lacs on 06.03.2021 and 17.03.2021. It has been submitted that after approval to appoint the petitioner as director of ZNPL was taken on 07.07.2021 by CDG Broadcasting, the petitioner made further payments of Rs. 50 lacs and 75 lacs on 25.08.2021 and 04.10.2021 to CDG. It has been submitted that the petitioner was made a director of ZNPL on 06.10.2021 which is much prior to the implementation of the Excise Policy for generation of the alleged POC. Learned senior counsel submitted that thereafter a final payment of Rs. 3.78 Crores approximately was made by the petitioner on 11.02.2022 to CDG and its promoter Pankaj Arora to purchase the shares of ZNPL. Therefore, the purchase of shares of ZNPL etc. and connected transactions had been initiated much prior to the alleged to the POC and have no link or nexus. In respect of the allegations regarding Andhra Prabha Publication Private limited and India Ahead News private limited, learned senior counsel submitted that petitioner is neither a share holder, director in KMP or investor in IANPL or APPL. Learned senior counsel submitted that petitioner has no connections with the transactions made between the Indo Spirits and the aforesaid companies. Learned senior counsel submitted that even the learned trial court while granting the bail to the petitioner in the predicate offence interalia held that whether the petitioner was a beneficiary or had control over the companies that is IANPL and APPL benefiting from the alleged transfer is a matter of trial. Learned counsel submitted that in fact Mr. Arun Pillai in his statement under Section 50 PMLA and Mr. Gautam Mootha in the representation made to CBI have categorically stated that the payment of Rs. 1.[7] crores by Indo Spirits was for a campaign to be run by IANPL and APPL. Learned senior counsel submits that despite these statements ED attributed the payment to the petitioner without any basis

9. Learned senior counsel submitted that the allegation that the said payment of Rs. 1.[7] Crore was made to secure the interest of the petitioner in the logo/IPR of IANPL and APPL is blatantly false. It was submitted that the petitioner had already purchased the logo of India ahead by making of Rs. 1.30 crore to APPL vide invoice bearing no. AP/21-22/03821A raised on 31.07.2021. Learned senior counsel submits that the allegation of conspiracy or the petitioner being a key player in the same is the matter of investigation/trial in the predicate offence and has no concerned with the PMLA case. It was submitted that the petitioner started managing the operation of the brands in Delhi on behalf of Sarath Reddy only in March after 2 out of 5 zones were surrendered by Mr. Sarath Reddy. Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner was only involved in the operations of the above said vends and drew no salary/monetary benefits.

10. Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner joined the operation of the firms after the two vends were shut, which is evident from the statement of Mrs. E. Chandan Reddy (Wife of Sarath Reddy) and Mr. Sarath Reddy. The Statement of Tanmay Vashisth (employees of Pernod Ricard) shows that the petitioner was involved in dealing with the operational issues of the vends only. In regard to the threats to withdraw complaints against Indo Spirits Group for cartelization, learned senior counsel submitted that the allegation is solely based on the statement of Jagbir Sidhu (DIAGEO) and Aman Dhall (BRINDCO) and no independent investigation has been carried out into the same by ED and reliance is placed on the oral statement. It has further been submitted stated that neither Mr. Dhall nor Mr. Sidhu had lodged any complaint that they were being threatened by the petitioner.

11. Learned senior counsel further submitted that there is no destruction of evidence on part of the petitioner. It was submitted that the changing of phone is a matter of regular business practice and the petitioner has fully cooperated with the investigation as and when he was called. It has been submitted that the petitioner has already been admitted to bail by the learned Special Judge in the predicate offence and he is a man of clean and clear antecedents having no past history of any criminal case. It has been submitted that allegations are just based upon the inferences drawn by the IO of its own notions/ beliefs and prejudices.

12. Learned senior counsel further submitted that trial is not even likely to be commenced as in both the predicate offence and in the PMLA case the investigation are yet underway and the trial may take long time. It has also been submitted that the twin conditions would not be a part to the grant of bail to the petitioner as there is a clear violation of Article 21 of the constitution. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has a family comprising of his old and ailing mother, his wife and a 9 year old minor son and he is the only responsible member in his family.

13. Sh. Vikram Chaudhary, learned senior counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon Satyender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation(supra) to buttress his point that noncompliance with Section 19 of PMLA would render the arrest and subsequent proceedings to be illegal and titling the petitioner to bail on a similar analogy.

14. Learned senior counsel has also relied uponUnion of India vs Dhami Sharasi (1995) 4 SCC 190 to emphasis his point that even twin conditions as postulated under Section 45(1) PMLA may not have any application if due process of law or procedure is not followed.

15. Sh. Zoheb Hossain, learned special counsel for ED submitted that the petitioner Abhishek Boinpally is a key person involved in the conspiracy of and giving bribe/kickbacks to the tune of Rs. 100 crore by the South Group to Sh. Vijay Nair and he facilitated the payment of Rs. 100 core kickback to Sh. Vijay Nair. It has been submitted that the petitioner organised payment of this amount from the South Group through Dinesh Arora.

16. Sh. Zoheb Hossain submitted that Dinesh Arora in his statement dated 01.10.2022 stated that in a meeting that took place in June 2021 in ITC Kohinoor Hyderabad, Sh. Vijay Nair had told him to coordinate with the petitioner Abhishek Boinpally for bringing funds to the tune of Rs. 20-30 crores from Hyderabad to Delhi.

17. Sh. Zoheb Hossain submitted that this meeting has been confirmed by the hotel records which has duly been placed on the records. It has further been submitted that against this advance kickback it was also understood that once the recovery of the kickback is done, then the 6% collected will be divided between Sh. Vijay Nair and Sh. Abhishek Boinpally as this arrangement was not only for one year but also for the remaining of the five year terms of AAP in Delhi Government. Sh. Zoheb Hossain submitted that Dinesh Arora in his statement has revealed that petitioner Abhishek Boinpally used to give him a note with number and phone number for the Hawala transaction on call and thereafter Dinesh Arora used to give the same to other persons (Rajesh Joshi and Sudhir) to pick up the cash. Reliance has also been placed upon the telephone calls between Dinesh Arora and Rajesh Joshi as well as Mr.Lupin. Sh. Zoheb Hossain submitted that Lupin was introduced to Dinesh Arora by petitioner Abhishek Boinpally only.

18. Sh. Zoheb Hossain submitted that Abhishek Boinpally was working for Super Cartel alongwith his associate Sh. Arun Pillai and Butchi Babu and was representing the interest of the South Group in the Delhi Liquor business. Petitioner Abhishek Boinpally attended a meeting in May 2021 at Gauri Apartment, New Delhi alongwith his associates. The meeting was organised by Vijay Nair to introduce them to liquor business in Delhi for them to understand market and also to find potential partnerships.

19. Sh. Zoheb Hossain submitted that it has come on the record that petitioner Abhishek Boinpally has constantly been in touch with the other players of the conspiracy that is Butchi Babu, Magunta Srinivas Reddy, Sameer Mahandru, Benoy Babu, Manoj Rai and Rajesh Mishra. It has been submitted that the South Group owned and controlled 9 out of 12 zones directly or indirectly and petitioner was working to manage the working operations of 5 out of these 9 retail zones owned and controlled by Sh. Sarath Reddy through Trident Chemphar Limited, Avantika Contractors and Organomix Eco Systems. It has been submitted that the Indo Spirit was a special purpose vehicle created to recoup the advance bribe of Rs. 100 crore given by south group and therefore Indo Spirits was made the wholesaler of one of the biggest manufacturer that is Pernod Ricard.

20. Sh. Zoheb Hossain submitted that the retail zones of Sarath Reddy were used for recoupment of the advance kickback given by South Group and one of the method to recoup the kickbacks was by way giving excess credit notes (i.e. the credit notes which have not been backed by the manufacturer) of Rs.

4.35 crore from Indo Spirits to the 5 retail zones of Sarath Reddy exclusively (no other retail zones were given excess credit notes). It has been submitted that further huge outstanding of Rs. 60 crores of the 5 zones of Sarath Reddy was pending for payment by these 5 zones to Indo Spirits. It has been submitted that these amount of Rs. 4.35 crores and Rs. 60 crores are the proceeds of crime. It has been submitted that the recoupment of kickbacks is also money laundering.

21. Sh. Zoheb Hossain further submitted that the designated wholesaler Indo Spirits was not able to get L[1] license from Delhi Excise Policy as there were some complaints against Indo Spirits group for cartelization and other violations. In this regard a writ petition was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the name of Varun Chaudhary highlighting the violation by Indo Spirits Group (Indo Spirit Marketing private limited) making the Government of NCT a respondent. Sh. Zoheb Hossain submitted that in fact the petitioner threatened Sh. Jagbir Sadhu of DIAGEO to withdraw the complaint otherwise it could adversely affect the business between DIAGEO and Brindco i.e. another wholesaler. This fact has been confirmed by Sh. Jagbir Sidhu in his statement dated 01.11.2022 as well by Aman Dhall in his statement dated 29.10.2022.

22. Sh. Zoheb Hossain further submitted that Abhishek Boinpally has not only assisted in generation of proceeds of crime but is also a beneficiary of the proceeds of crimes generated from Indo Spirit. It has been submitted that out of total profit of Rs. 192.[8] crore made by Indo Spirits POC of amount of Rs. 3.85 crore has been received in the account of Abhishek Boinpally through multiple layers. Sh. Zoheb Hossain further submitted that petitioner has not been cooperative during the investigation and remained abrasive and has also destroyed /changed/used his mobile phone for 5 times in around a year which itself shows that the accused has deliberately deleted/ destroyed evidences stored in these devices.

23. Sh. Zoheb Hossain submitted that the petitioner has tried to mislead the investigation by constantly changing his statements.

24. The offence of money laundering has been defined in section 3 of the PMLA, which reads as under:

25. The 'proceeds of crime' has been defined under Section 2 (u) of PMLA, which reads as under: “(u) “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3 [or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4 [or abroad]; …”

2. In this regard the proceeds of crime and the scope and ambit of Section 3 of PMLA has been well laid down in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra) wherein it has been held as under: “263.Coming to Section 3 of the 2002 Act, the same defines the offence of money-laundering. The expression “money-laundering”, ordinarily, means the process or activity of placement, layering and finally integrating the tainted property in the formal economy of the country. However, Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence, as defined, captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an act of money-laundering. This is amply clear from the original provision, which has been further clarified by insertion of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Section 3, as amended, reads thus: "3. Offence of money-laundering.-Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any including concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. Explanation. -For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,-

(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of moneylaundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:a. concealment; or b. possession; or c. acquisition; or d. use; or e. projecting as untainted property; or f. claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever,

(ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever."

265. To put it differently, the section as it stood prior to 2019 had itself incorporated the expression "including", which is indicative of reference made to the different process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the principal provision (as also the Explanation) predicates that if a person is found to be directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime must be held guilty of offence of money-laundering. If the interpretation set forth by the petitioners was to be accepted, it would follow that it is only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property, the offence would be complete. This would undermine the efficacy of the legislative intent behind Section 3 of the Act and also will be in disregard of the view expressed by the FATF in connection with the occurrence of the word "and" preceding the expression "projecting or claiming" therein. This Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, enunciated that the international treaties, covenants and conventions although may not be a part of municipal law, the same be referred to and followed by the Courts having regard to the fact that India is a party to the said treaties. This Court went on to observe that the Constitution of India and other ongoing statutes have been read consistently with the rules of international law. It is also observed that the Constitution of India and the enactments made by Parliament must necessarily be understood in the context of the present-day scenario and having regard to the international treaties and convention as our constitution takes note of the institutions of the world community which had been created. In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the Court observed that domestic Courts are under an obligation to give due regard to the international conventions and norms for construing the domestic laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law. This view has been restated in Githa Hariharan as a, as also in People's Union for Civil Liberties 82, and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India.

266. In the Core Recommendations of the FATF referred to above, the same clearly mention that the word "and" in Section 3 of the 2002 Act would not be fully in line with the Vienna and Palermo Conventions. This doubt has been ably responded and elucidated by India to the international body by referring to the jurisprudence as evolved in India to interpret the word "and" as "or" in the context of the legislative intent - to reckon any (every) constituting offence of money-laundering. To buttress the stand taken by India before the FATF, reliance has been justly placed on reported decisions of this Court amongst other Sanjay Dutt, which had occasion to deal with the expression "arms and ammunition" occurring in Section 5 of the TADA Act. The Court noted that if it is to be read conjunctively because of word "and", the object of prohibiting unauthorised possession of the forbidden arms and ammunition would be easily frustrated by the simple device of one person carrying the forbidden arms and his accomplice carrying its ammunition so that neither is covered under Section 5 when any one of them carrying more would be so liable. The principle underlying this analysis by the Constitution Bench must apply proprio vigore to the interpretation of Section 3 of the 2002 Act. To the same end, this Court in the case of Ishwar Singh Bindra v. The State of U.P.165, Joint Director of Mines Safety and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd., interpreted the word "and" in the concerned legislation (s) as word "or" to give full effect to the legislative intent.

273. On a bare reading of Section 3, we find no difficulty in encapsulating the true ambit, given the various arguments advanced. Thus, in the conspectus of things It must follow that the interpretation put forth by the respondent will further the purposes and objectives behind the 2002 Act and also adequately address the recommendations and doubts of the international body whilst keeping in mind the constitutional limits. it would, therefore, be just to sustain the argument that the amendment of way or the explanation has been brought about already present words, only to clarity the any" and including" which manifests the true meaning of the definition and clarities the mist around its true nature.”

26. Section 45 of PMLA provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is also pertinent to mention here that Section 45 provides that the twin conditions are in addition to the limitation provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on grant of bail.

27. It is settled proposition Section 45 PMLA do not impose an absolute restraint on the grant of bail and the court at this stage is to prima facie consider whether applying the standard of broad probabilities the material against the applicant would result in conviction. It is also a settled proposition that at this stage the Court is only required to examine the matter to find out whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mens rea. It is also no longer res integra that the court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed the offence under the Act. It is also a settled proposition that the court at this stage is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously. The court is only required to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. It is also a settled proposition that the court is not required to hold a mini trial at this stage and is required to examine the case on the basis of broad probabilities. It is also to be kept in mind that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 45 of PMLA, the court is required to take into consideration the limitations prescribed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

28. In regard to the limitation under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjhan (2004) 7 SCC 528 it has been held as under: “The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

29. Before proceeding further, it is also necessary to be reminded the scope of jurisdiction to be exercised while granting bail in the economic offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 528 held as under:

46. It is also the case of the ED that huge outstanding amount of Rs. 60 crores of the 5 zones of Sarath Reddy was pending for payment by these 5 zones to Indo Spirits and therefore this amount of Rs. 4.35 crore and Rs. 60 crore are nothing but POC. It is that case of the ED that the recoupment of kickbacks are also money laundering.

47. The ED’s case is that the petitioner knew it fully well that these retail zones were being used as part of the conspiracy to recoup the kickbacks and ensure that these retail zones run smoothly and are capable of being used as vehicles for recouping the proceedings of crime.

48. In view of the law which has been discussed above, it is settled position that the statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA is admissible evidence though the evidentiary value of the same is to be seen after the trial. However, at this stage, the court cannot ignore the statements under Section 50 PMLA which the statue provides to have been recorded as part of the judicial proceedings. In such cases of conspiracy, the present case is of peculiar nature where Excise policy was formed with illobjective of illegal earning money through illegal means.

49. The petitioner as per the statement under Section 50 PMLA which have been discussed above is apparently an important player of such conspiracy and has also acted in the money laundering. The flow of money from Indo Spirits to his account on 10.02.2022 indicate his complicity in the money laundering. Thus it cannot be said at this stage that there are reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is not guilty of such offence.

50. Learned Special Judge inter alia held that he was one of the representatives of the south group in the cartelisation and he played an active role in payment of kickbacks amount as well as its recoupment. He met the co-accused Vijay Nair and others as a representative of the South lobby in connection with excise policy formulation and it was he through whom at least Rs. 20- 30 crores out of the kickback amount of Rs. 100 crores are alleged to have been transmitted or transferred to Delhi from South and delivered to the co-accused Vijay Nair and his team, as per details provided by this accused and through the approver Sh. Dinesh Arora. Specific statements of approver Sh. Dinesh Arora and Sh. Arun Chandaran Pillai are there to this effect. The statement of approver further shows that Abhishek Boinpally contacted this accused and his cousin Sh. Lupin on few occasions in connection with payment delivery of the above amount of kickbacks and this is even stated to be corroborated by the call detail records of few persons. He was also the person who was handling the operations of five retail zones owned by co-accused P. Sarath Chandra Reddy through his above retail entities and there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence corroborating this fact in the form of statements of some witnesses and accused and also the Whatsapp chats between different persons.

51. Learned trial court has also inter alia held that he has assisted in recoupment of the kickback amount as evident from the fact that an amount of Rs. 3.85 crores out of the recouped kickbacks was transferred in his bank account from the account of Sh. Gautham Mootha and this transfer is found to have genesis in the amount of Rs. 33 crores which was transferred to the account of Sh. Arun Ramchandaran Pillai by Sameer Mahandru, out of the profits earned by Indo Spirit. This accused is even found connected with two other transfers for the amounts of Rs. 1 crore and 70 lakhs in accounts of M/S Andhra Prabha Publications and M/S India Ahead news respectively, which entities are alleged to be associated with him and even these amounts are stated to have been transferred towards recoupment of the kickbacks. Further, besides attending the above two meetings held in connection with formulation of the excise policy in May-June, 2021 in Gauri Apartments, Near Claridges Hotel and in hotel ITC Kohinoor at Hyderabad, he even attended the meeting held in February/April, 2022 in hotel Oberoi Maidens, Delhi to sort out the recoupment issue and to expedite the recoupment process, at the instance or along with his bosses in South.

52. Learned Trial Court has meticulously examined the case on merits and has reached to a finding which is duly supported by sound reasons. I do not find any illegality in the order of learned Trial Court.

53. As discussed above, the accused person in the present case acting in furtherance of the conspiracy circumvented the policy and got framed the policy in such a manner to continuously generate and channel illegal funds. The allegations are that deliberate loopholes were left to facilitate illegal and criminal activities. It is also pertinent to mention here that investigation has revealed that 65% stake was given to South Group in Indo- Spirits to make it a mechanism for continuous generation and channelisation of Proceeds of Crime.

54. In view of the discussion, taking into account the seriousness and gravity of the allegations and credible material on record, the bail application alongwith pending application stands dismissed.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J JULY 3, 2023