Excise policy case: Delhi court refuses further extension of interim bail to Sameer Mahendru

A Delhi court on Friday denied any further extension of interim bail to liquor businessman Sameer Mahendru, an accused in the money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.

Special Judge M.K. Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Couet stressed the seriousness of the case and stated that Mahendru's status as an accused cannot be overlooked.

Judge Nagpal noted that Mahendru had already been out on interim bail for around five months during his 16-month custody, primarily on the grounds of his wife's surgery.

However, the court noted that his interim bail had been extended multiple times for this purpose and that the initial order clearly stated that no further extensions would be entertained.

“Simply because some post-surgery complications have arisen, which can certainly be managed through medication, the interim bail of applicant cannot be extended again and again and for the purpose of taking care of his wife only,” the judge noted.

he also said that Mahendru's wife's medical needs could be managed by other relatives, reiterating that the purpose of interim bail is not to convert it into regular bail.

Moreover, the court observed that there were indications that the medical treatment for Mahendru's wife may have been prolonged to seek further extensions of bail.

"...this court also gets a feeling that the above treatment and tests of his wife have unnecessarily been delayed and stretched so as to seek further extension of interim bail by the applicant and hence, this court is of considered view that no further extension of interim bail to him is warranted in light of the above facts and record,” the judge said.

Regarding Mahendru's own medical condition and proposed knee surgery, the judge indicated that a separate assessment would be necessary to determine if interim bail was warranted.

In light of the circumstances, the court dismissed Mahendru's application for further extension of interim bail and directed him to surrender before the concerned jail by 5 p.m. on Saturday.

Earlier, the ED had opposed the extension, contending that it violated the court's earlier condition that Mahendru wouldn't seek further relief. The judge had, however, found no evidence that the surgery delay was intentional or caused by any fault of the accused or his wife.

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.