The Enforcement Directorate (ED) informed the Supreme Court on Monday that they have traced a financial connection of Rs 3.8 crore between the company Indospirits and Abhishek Boinpally, a businessman from Hyderabad who is accused in the Delhi liquor policy case.

In the chargesheet initially submitted in November 2022, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) identified Sameer Mahendru, the director at Indospirits, as one of the individuals implicated. Mahendru, a liquor trader, is alleged to be connected to irregularities related to the formulation and execution of the defunct excise policy.

The court was considering two petitions from Abhishek Boinpally – one requesting bail and the other challenging the legality of his arrest carried out by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) presented their response before a bench presided over by Justice Sanjiv Khanna. In addressing an argument presented on behalf of Boinpally that there was no established connection against him, the ED's counsel stated that a nexus had indeed been established. Initially, the ED had requested additional time to respond to the petition challenging Boinpally's arrest, citing that they had received the petition only a couple of days prior.

The challenge to the legality of the arrest revolves around the assertion that there was a failure to comply with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which pertains to the authority to make arrests. The argument posited is that a failure to adhere to this provision would render the arrest and subsequent proceedings unlawful. The petitioner has referenced a recent decision by the top court in Pankaj Bansal's case, wherein it was ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must document the reasons for arresting the accused in writing.

Justice Khanna expressed uncertainty about the extent to which the court could delve into the matter, noting that Section 19 pertains to the occurrence of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) remand. He highlighted that the focus, in terms of the court's judgment, would be on whether Section 19 was adhered to in the proceedings.

The counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) informed the court that prior to the judgment in Pankaj Bansal's case, they had been provided with the reasons for the arrest.

Justice Khanna emphasized that the established legal principles must be followed, stating, "Whatever it is, the law has been laid down. We don't create the law."

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Boinpally, highlighted a timeline of events, stating, "From October last year, I've been inside. The chargesheets have been filed. There's an order granting me bail. There's something gross here. My bail in CBI was argued in November last year. On the 14th, it was kept in order. One day before, in the evening, they arrested me!"

Mukul Rohatgi continued his argument by stating that three individuals, all of whom are approvers, have made statements against his client. Additionally, he emphasized that there is no evidence of a money trail in the case.

The counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) asserted, "There's a factual inaccuracy. (Rs) 3.8 crore, we have established a direct money trail from Indospirits to this gentleman." 

The court subsequently decided to schedule the case for December 4 and allowed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) a window of five days to submit a brief counter to the arguments presented.