The matter is next listed for ED's arguments on May 15. Hyderabad businessman Abhishek Boinpally, an accused in the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money laundering probe into the excise policy case, while arguing his bail before the Delhi High Court Monday said he has no criminal antecedents and is not a flight risk and hence should be granted bail. The submission was made by Boinpally’s counsel Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari before a single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma. Boinpally moved the High Court seeking bail besides moving a writ petition challenging his arrest, remand and other proceedings conducted by ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). “I have no antecedents, I have no past…I’m a man with deep roots. My father abandoned (me) a long time back. I have been raised by a single mother. She is old. I have a wife and a minor child. This is my family. I’m always available. I’m not a flight risk…There is a seriously debatable issue which could be thrashed at the time of the trial. I have a sanguine case to bring all this in evidence and demonstrate,” said Boinpally. His counsel said Boinpally has been available whenever he was called by ED or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and that there was no complaint that his client was “not rendering cooperation with any agency”. “The bail order passed by the same learned judge…though in the capacity of CBI special court, considers all these facets against me. There is an approver Dinesh Arora. His testimony was dealt with and in the bail order an emphatic finding is recorded that this would be tested…the veracity and evidentiary value would be tested in trial and Im allowed bail,” Chaudhari said. Chaudhari said the Delhi High Court may consider that his client had been granted bail tested on the “anvil of an identical piece of evidence” which is being relied upon by “both” investigating agencies. With respect to the accusations against his client, Chaudhari said, “The first accusation against me is I’m a key person involved in a conspiracy to provide advanced kickbacks of Rs. 100 crore. I’m the one representing the South group…and the basis of the accusation is only the statement of Dinesh Arora. He is an approver in the CBI case not here (in ED). Assuming his statement is of some credibility, this is a statement of a person who has been given assurance of non-prosecution, non-arrest”. Chaudhari said if anybody in any case makes a statement against any person it requires “material particulars especially in case of an approver”. He said the courts have frowned upon the “testimony of approver who is making a self-confession”, and he has already been assured that he won’t be prosecuted. “One Mr Arun Pillai, one of the partners in Indo Spirits, has also made a statement indicating my role. Soon after he filed a detailed application before the trial court alleging that his statement was obtained under duress,” Chaudhari said. With respect to the second allegation Chaudhari said, “…allegation was that Rs. 3.85 crores travelled from Indospirits to one Gautam Mootha, one of my good acquaintances on February 10, 2022, then to me and from me to Zeus network private network which was kind of a news network. This is the trial according to the ED. This is only on paper…but what they are ignoring is two facts. In February-March 2021 I from my own account invested in Zeus. On October 6, 2021, I have been made director of Zeus and as of today, I’m a 99 per cent shareholder (as per the document downloaded from the MCA website). I and Mr Mootha have some kind of relationship with each other. I had given Rs. 50 lakh on October 19, 2020, to India Ahead News Private Limited, which is under a company called Andhra Prabha Publications Ltd, which is controlled by Mr Mootha. It is returned back to me on November 9, 2020”. Chaudhari said that Boinpally had paid over Rs. 6.53 crore between November 10, 2020, to November 1, 2021, to Mootha. “We both hail from Hyderabad. This Rs. 3.85 crore which comes to me in February 2022 is just a part of which he (Mootha) owes me. Is it bad to do business?” he asked. With respect to the “fallacy” in the ED’s case, Chaudhari said, “The fallacy is that this Rs 3.85 crore came to me from Mootha so must have been proceeds of crime, without…disclosing to the court that he (Boinpally) had already paid Rs 6.53 crore to Mootha and balance is left”. He submitted that Mootha’s statement as well as his client’s statement is also recorded under PMLA which corroborates this fact. “As an officer of ED or any investigating agency, I’m supposed to be objective, fair and not prejudge things and place every piece of evidence and then form an opinion. There is no answer to why my statement or Mr Mootha’s statement is bad, but I (ED) will rely upon one Mr Dinesh Arora or Mr Arun Pillai which has now been retracted”. The matter is next listed for ED’s arguments on May 15.