Delhi Excise Policy Case: Supreme Court Grants Bail To AAP's Vijay Nair In After 2 Years In Jail

The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to Vijay Nair, former media in-charge of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), in the Delhi excise policy case, citing his nearly two-year incarceration. The court noted that the trial in the case had yet to begin and that the maximum punishment upon conviction would be seven years, as reported by Hindustan Times.

Nair is the third accused in the Delhi excise case to be granted bail since August. Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and Bharat Rashtra Samiti leader K Kavitha were also granted bail on August 9 and August 27, respectively.

Delhi Excise Policy Case: Supreme Court Grants Bail To AAP's Vijay Nair

The decision was made by a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, who emphasized that the general principle of "bail being the rule and jail being the exception" would be undermined if Nair were kept in custody for an extended period, particularly when the maximum sentence he could face is seven years, as reported by Hindustan Times.

Nair was arrested in November 2022 in connection with alleged kickbacks received by the AAP for making changes to the now-scrapped 2021-22 excise policy, which were purportedly designed to favour private liquor retailers known as the South Group. While Nair was granted bail in 2022 in the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) case against him, he has remained in custody for his alleged role in the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

During the hearing, Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rebecca John, along with Advocate Vivek Jain, argued on behalf of Nair that their client had been incarcerated for close to 22 months. They referenced the bail granted to co-accused Sisodia and Kavitha, who had been in custody for 17 months and five months, respectively.

The court observed that the right to liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, is sacrosanct and must be respected, even in cases involving stringent laws like the PMLA. The bench further noted that the prolonged incarceration of an undertrial cannot serve as a form of punishment, especially in the absence of a concluded trial, as per media reports.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, argued that the charges against Nair were severe and highlighted that Kavitha was granted bail as a female accused under PMLA, while Sisodia's bail was influenced by trial delays. Raju also accused Nair of delaying the trial by filing belated applications for documents and CCTV footage two years into the case.

Despite these arguments, the court emphasized that individuals holding higher positions in the AAP had already been granted bail in the same case. It reiterated that the continued incarceration of an undertrial should not be treated as a punishment for the alleged offence, especially as the trial might result in an acquittal.

The ED had argued that under PMLA Section 45, the court was required to draw a prima facie conclusion that Nair was not an accused. The agency presented evidence suggesting that Nair had acted as a middleman for the AAP, facilitating the receipt of ₹100 crore in kickbacks from the South Group, who were alleged to have benefited from increased commission rates in the excise policy. However, when questioned by the bench about any recovery made from Nair, Raju stated that the money had been spent during the Goa election, as per media reports.

Singhvi countered by pointing out that Nair had been implicated based on the statement of Dinesh Arora, an accused-turned-approver. He noted that Arora had named Nair in his 12th statement recorded under the PMLA, but had not mentioned Nair in any of his earlier statements. This fact was recorded by the court while granting bail to Nair.

The court further specified that the conditions imposed on Sisodia and Kavitha as part of their bail would apply to Nair as well. It also clarified that the bail order would not influence the ongoing trial of the case.