Delhi High Court grants bail to RJD MP Amrendra Dhari Singh on merits as well as on medical grounds

By - Shriya Singh*

The Delhi High Court recently passed an order releasing RJD MP Amrendra Dhari Singh (petitioner) on bail. Earlier, the petitioner was arrested on suspicion of money laundering related to the fertilizer scam. A case was registered against the petitioner under Sec. 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 420 (Cheating) IPC and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

As per the facts, the petitioner was alleged to have committed criminal conspiracy from 2007 to 2014, cheated and defrauded the Government of India by fraudulently importing fertilizers and other materials for the manufacturing of fertilizers at inflated costs and claiming a greater subsidy from GoI. The commission earned from the suppliers was reportedly siphoned off through a complicated web of fictitious commercial transactions involving various firms owned by the other accused persons, all of which were registered outside of India to hide the illegal activities. The petitioner acted as an intermediary in channelling the illegal money through various business entities.

Also Read - Application under O.VI R.17 of CPC should be considered on merits before exercising power under O.XII R.6 of CPC: Delhi High Court.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the FIR was registered by the CBI based on a complaint of one Nishikant Dubey. Furthermore, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were no charges against the petitioner that he manipulated any witness in the eight years since the CBI case was filed and he has been available for the investigation and has even participated in the FEMA probe since 2011. 

It was also claimed that the ED had failed to provide the petitioner with the grounds for his arrest until now and that they were not even included in the arrest document given to him at the time of his detention. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that not even a single summons under Sec. 41 A of Cr.P.C. was issued, directing him to participate in the investigation, and he was arrested by circumventing every procedure for arrest. The Counsel further argued that FIR registered by the CBI is the disclosure statement of one Rajiv Saxena, who himself is the accused in the FIR.

Also Read - Supreme Court orders further investigation by an independent investigation agency in a bail plea.

Further, the petitioner side submitted that the petitioner is a 61 years old man and is suffering from several ailments and that the petitioner’s condition is “deteriorating significantly”. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provision of Section 45 of the PMLA provides that in case of a sick person, bail should be granted to the person arrested. He is a member of the Rajya Sabha from Bihar whose term expires in 2026. 

Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the ED has made no allegations that the petitioner abused his position as a member of the Standing Committee on Fertilizers. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provision of Section 45 of the PMLA provides that in case of a sick person, bail should be granted to the person arrested. 

Also Read - Revisional jurisdiction can only be invoked when allowing the application will finally terminate the proceeding: Rajasthan HC.

On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General opposed the petitioner’s prayer by pointing out that the accusations against the petitioner are serious and that the accused is a powerful and influential person due to which there is a likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the evidence. It was further argued that the petitioner failed to co-operate in the investigation and that the health condition of the petitioner is stable. 

With regard to Sec. 45 of the PMLA, learned ASG submitted that the court should grant bail only after, "recording a satisfaction to the effect that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offenses and that while on bail he is not likely to commit any offense”. 

Also Read - Preventive detention only to prevent public disorder; Cannot be invoked over apprehension of breach of law and order: Supreme Court.

The Court after listening to both sides as well as referring to the earlier Supreme Court judgments noted that in the instance of the petitioner for bail, the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. and the requirements thereof will apply.  Furthermore, the Court held, “There are no specific allegations that the petitioner in any manner over the last many years since the filing of the complaint way back in the year 2013 had in any manner tried to tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses” (Para 38).

“No doubt, as argued by the Ld. ASG, the condition of the petitioner is not serious and do not require immediate attention and his present condition is manageable, but one also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner is a known case of cancer and is suffering from various aforementioned diseases for which he is taking medicines as submitted by Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner”, the court observed in paragraph 42 of its order.

In light of all the facts and circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail both on the merits as well as medical grounds.

CLICK HERE TO READ ORDER.

*Shriya Singh is a 1^st year student pursuing B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) from National Law University, Delhi.