HYDERABAD: A CBI court in New Delhi on Thursday denied bail to five Delhi liquor scam accused including top businessman from Hyderbad Sarath Chandra Reddy of pharma giant Aurobindo and Abhishek Boinpally, as the allegations made against them are quite serious and relate to commission of an economic
offence of money-laundering.
Special Judge M.K. Nagpal, in his order rejecting the bail petitions, made a critical observation that “enough evidence is there to infer the existence of a criminal conspiracy” in the liquor scam and not just the statements by the approvers and other involved persons in the case.
The order which has more than once referred to K. Kavitha, MLC and daughter
of Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao, said the “formation of the cartel has to be viewed in light of the allegations and evidence for payment of advance kickbacks by the south liquor lobby to the politicians and other public servants in Delhi”.
The CBI court referred to meetings held by Kavitha with the accused in which the kickbacks, method of and delay in recouping the kickback amounts were discussed.
The Judge also observed that the kickback amount, which the Central agencies
put at Rs 100 crore of which Rs 20-30 crore was routed by Abhishek, “is stated to have originated from the south lobby allegedly consisting Sarath Chandra
Reddy, Lok Sabha member Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy and his son Raghav besides Kavitha” and “was supposed to be passed on further to the senior politicians of Aam Admi Party and other public servants”.
The CBI court said when the Delhi excise policy “is tested and viewed in light of the allegations being levelled by the prosecution, it emerges out that the policy was formulated giving a complete go by to the major recommendations of the Expert Committee constituted to assist in formulation of the policy and even the exercise of taking public opinion in the matter was an eye-wash”.
The court dismissed the contention of the accused that there is no evidence on record to show any meeting of minds or conspiracy hatched between the accused persons to pay the kickbacks and to recoup it. “This submission is unacceptable in light of the oral and documentary evidence which has been brought on record by the ED against the accused persons and enough evidence
is there to infer the existence of such a criminal conspiracy between the accused,” the judge pointed out.
