The Delhi High Court recently denied interim bail to liquor businessman Sameer Mahendru, accused in the money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam, but allowed him to undergo a surgery while being in the custody of the Jail Superintendent.
Sameer Mahendru had prayed that he be granted interim bail since his and his wife’s medical condition was severely compromised.
The businessman has claimed that he has to undergo knee surgery and his wife, who has developed post-surgery complications, has to be taken care of.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who presided over the case, noted that Sameer Mahendru’s medical condition cannot be categorised as a “life-threatening situation”. “… the knee surgery which is to be undergone by the applicant is not of such a nature which necessitates the applicant’s release on interim bail only,” the judge said.
However, she allowed him to be taken to the hospital concerned, for the surgery while in custody, as per the scheduled date.
Special counsel for the ED had also told the judge that he had no objection to Sameer Mahendru’s prayer seeking to get his surgery performed.
Perusing the documents filed, the court also noted that the date of surgery, which was initially fixed for February 26, has not been re-scheduled.
“Thus, the applicant will be at liberty to get the date of the surgery rescheduled and thereafter move a fresh application before this court for seeking appropriate directions,” the court said.
On February 16, a Delhi court had denied any further extension of interim bail to the businessman.
Special Judge, MK Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court had stressed the seriousness of the case and stated that Sameer Mahendru’s status as an accused cannot be overlooked.
Judge Nagpal had noted that he 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.
Also Read
“Simply because some post-surgery complications have arisen, which can certainly be managed through medication, the interim bail of the applicant cannot be extended again and again and for the purpose of taking care of his wife only,” the judge had noted.
“…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 had further said.
According to the prosecution, Sameer 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. (IANS)
