A special court on November 14, 2022, had granted bail to Nair and Boinpally observing that there is no evidence, except oral, to show the transfer of huge amounts of money as alleged by the CBI. The Delhi High Court Tuesday asked CBI to place before it the copy of the charge sheet filed against AAP communications in charge Vijay Nair and Hyderabad businessman Abhishek Boinpally in its probe into the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy. A single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was told by senior counsel Siddharth Luthra appearing for Boinpally and the counsel appearing for Nair that the copy of the chargesheet filed by CBI against Nair and Boinpally was not on record in the matter. As CBI’s counsel sought time to file the same, the High Court directed that the copy of chargesheets be placed on record and listed the matter on October 6. A special court on November 14, 2022, had granted bail to Nair and Boinpally observing that there is no evidence, except oral, to show the transfer of huge amounts of money as alleged by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The special court had observed, “Except the oral evidence collected in the form of statements, there is also no other evidence or material gathered to date to show the alleged transmission of such huge amounts of money through the applicants by the other co-accused”. It added the oral evidence will have to be tested during the course of the trial. CBI in its plea before the High Court has said the special judge has not only “granted concession of bail to the respondent accused in an extremely serious and wide-ranging economic offence, but this discretion has been exercised at a very crucial stage of investigation”. The agency has said this is a case of conspiracy sought to be carried out in an extremely convoluted manner with a clear purpose of making an attempt that the investigation, if any, does not reach the real culprits. On July 3, the HC had dismissed Nair’s bail plea in the ED case while observing that witness statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act

(PMLA) on record show, he had “indulged and… knowingly assisted in process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its acquisition, use, and projection thereof as untainted property”. “It is pertinent to mention here it is not disputed that petitioner Vijay Nair is residing in a bungalow allotted to a senior minister of the Government of NCTD of Delhi. This fact itself shows his prominence in the government. Witness after witness have stated in their statements under Section 50 of PMLA that Nair had been interacting with them regarding the new excise policy with full authority,” Justice Sharma had said, observing that “at this stage”, the court cannot “just cannot ignore” witness statements. The court had also noted the allegations against Nair pertain to “deliberate loopholes” being left out to “facilitate illegal and criminal activities”. It had also said it finds no reason to interfere with the special judge’s February 16 order which rejected Nair’s bail plea.