The Supreme Court on Friday (December 8) granted bail to Benoy Babu, Regional Manager of Pernod Ricard India, the Indian subsidiary of global beverage giant Pernod Ricard, in a Delhi Liquor Policy Case. The case relates to alleged violation of the Excise Act by the firm. Delhi’s Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia had earlier opposed the bail plea, citing pre-trial detention. As per LiveLaw, the top court granted bail to Babu with directions for him to seek regular bail from the concerned court as early as possible. (Source: LiveLaw)

What specific allegations were made against Pernod Ricard India regarding the violation of the Excise Act in Delhi?

Pernod Ricard India, the Indian subsidiary of global beverage giant Pernod Ricard, had been facing allegations of violating the Excise Act. According to reports, the firm had allegedly taken part in illegal purchase and resale of liquor, with documents for sale and purchase of bottles to fictitious entities. The Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi was opposing the bail plea of Benoy Babu, the Regional Manager of Pernod Ricard India, citing pre-trial detention.

Apart from alleged unlawful purchase and resale of liquor, Pernod Ricard India was also accused of inflating their sale figures to make higher profits. This was done by allegedly selling the same liquor several times, thus violating the stipulated norms. It has been speculated that the racket could have resulted in a lot of financial irregularities.

Moreover, investigations have revealed that companies owned by Pernod Ricard India had been involved in presenting fraudulent documents in order to conceal the transactions. Additionally, the firm was accused of taking benefit of certain excise exemptions that were meant only for the Delhi government. This may have resulted in huge sums of money due to the government going unpaid. These allegations have been made against Pernod Ricard India in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy Case, leading to the proceeded trial of Benoy Babu, Regional Manager of the firm.

What were the reasons given by Delhi’s Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia for opposing the bail plea?

However, the court recently granted bail to Benoy Babu, overruling the Deputy Chief Minister’s objections. Manish Sisodia had initially objected to the bail plea of Benoy Babu, citing that he should remain in police custody for a while in order to recover the documents which can be used as evidence in the case. He further remarked that due to the huge irregularities that took place in the purchase and sale of liquor, the financial loss resulting from this alleged fraud would be difficult to recover. Furthermore, he argued that the perpetrator of such a grave crime should not be given bail. Despite the Deputy Chief Minister’s objections, the court ruled in favour of Benoy Babu.

Are there any other individuals or entities involved in this Delhi Liquor Policy Case apart from Benoy Babu and Pernod Ricard India?

Apart from Benoy Babu and Pernod Ricard India, the Delhi Liquor Policy Case involves the Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who had opposed the bail plea citing pre-trial detention. The policy violation alleged against Pernod Ricard India relates to the Delhi Excise Act, with the government accusing that the firm was operating in the state without a valid license. The SC, however, ordered regular bail for Benoy Babu. This case serves as an example of the on-going feud between the state government and foreign companies operating in India, involving divisive and complex legal debates.