Delhi court to hear Hyd bizman Arun Pillai's interim bail plea in excise policy case on Dec 4
A Delhi court on Friday partly heard the arguments on an interim bail plea of Hyderabad-based liquor businessman Arun Ramchandran Pillai, who is an accused in the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy case, and posted the matter for further hearing on December 4.
New Delhi, Dec 1 (IANS) A Delhi court on Friday partly heard the arguments on an interim bail plea of Hyderabad-based liquor businessman Arun Ramchandran Pillai, who is an accused in the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy case, and posted the matter for further hearing on December 4.
On Pillai's interim bail plea seeking an eight-week release due to his wife's medical condition, the central probe agency Enforcement Directorate (ED) has to now file a reply. Before Special Judge MK Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court, Pillai's counsel Advocate Nitesh Rana submitted that his client's wife is extremely sick, and that she has no one to look after as she lives alone.
Pillai was arrested on March 6 and is currently in judicial custody.
Earlier this month, the ED filed a reply before the Delhi High Court on the bail plea of Pillai.
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.
Earlier, citing the Supreme Court mandate of providing grounds of 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 is required under Section 19(1) of PMLA.
The 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 is 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 9 (nine) occasions after the filing of first prosecution complaint and at least on 3 (three) occasions after filing of the second prosecution complaint on which occasions the petitioner/applicant was never arrested by the respondent agency," it stated.