Excise policy case: Court seeks ED’s reply on Mahendru’s plea for interim bail extension
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in response to an application by liquor businessman Sameer Mahendru seeking an extension of interim bail granted to him in the excise policy case.
Notably, Special Judge MK Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Court had granted a two-week interim bail to Mahendru, who sought the relief citing his wife’s health issues. The court has now directed the ED to respond by January 18.
The judge asked the Investigating Officer to verify medical documents related to Mahendru’s wife and submit a report to the court.
The judge had, while granting interim bail, observed that during Mahendru’s previous interim bail, there was no attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence and Mahendru does not pose a flight risk.
According to the prosecution, Mahendru was a significant beneficiary of excise policy violations, operating an alcoholic beverage manufacturing unit and holding wholesale and retail licences in his and his family’s names.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had denied regular bail to Mahendru.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had observed that Mahendru’s medical condition does not pose a life-threatening risk or involve an infirmity that cannot be treated within the confines of a jail.
The court had noted that Mahendru is already receiving adequate medical attention, and prison authorities have permitted him to seek treatment from his doctor on an out-patient basis as needed.
It had ruled that there were no compelling grounds to grant regular bail to Mahendru in the current case. However, it clarified that the prison authorities must ensure that Mahendru is taken for follow-up medical and physiotherapy sessions at VNA Hospital and that he is not left unattended in the jail cell or dispensary.
Justice Sharma had stressed on the importance of an individual’s right to liberty, acknowledging it as a precious right but also noted that when justifiable grounds exist, it must be surrendered in favour of the State.
The court had underlined the obligation to provide health services and care equivalent to what is available to the general citizenry outside of detention.
Stressing on the need for impartiality and objectivity, the court had said that decisions in such cases should be based on the merits of the case and established legal principles, rather than the economic status of the litigants.
Addressing the allegations against the accused, the court had noted that he was accused of being a key player in the formulation of the excise policy and one of the main conspirators.
While acknowledging his fundamental right to healthcare and medical treatment, the court had said that this right cannot overshadow the imperative to conduct a fair investigation and ensure due legal processes are followed.
The court had noted that Mahendru had undergone approximately five surgeries in the past. However, as of the current date, he is recovering in jail, and according to AIIMS reports, he is required to follow medical and rehabilitation protocols, supplemented by regular exercise and physiotherapy.