Mumbai: In a significant setback to alleged online liquor sale networks, a Mumbai sessions court has refused anticipatory bail to a Khar-based wine shop licence holder, observing that the allegations disclose a “systematic and organised mechanism” for unauthorised online sale and home delivery of liquor rather than a mere technical breach of licence conditions.Rejecting the plea on July 3, Additional Sessions Judge P.A. Sable held that custodial interrogation was necessary as investigators were yet to uncover the full extent of the alleged racket, including electronic evidence, financial transactions, the operational framework and the roles of others involved. The court said such an investigation could not be effectively carried out if the accused was granted the “extraordinary protection” of anticipatory bail.Businessman Manish Srichand Pardasani, 53, had sought anticipatory bail in a case registered by the State Excise Department’s O Division under various provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, including Sections 65(a) and 65(e), over the alleged illegal online sale and distribution of liquor.According to the prosecution, liquor was allegedly sold through an online platform and delivered to customers using an app. It claimed Pardasani, as the licence holder, was vicariously liable for his employees’ acts and had facilitated the alleged illegal operation. The prosecution also argued that unauthorised home delivery raised the risk of adulteration, posing a threat to public health and safety.The court observed that the allegations pointed to an organised commercial operation requiring recovery and verification of electronic evidence, tracing of financial transactions and identification of all those involved. It added that the availability of some records with the Excise Department did not rule out the need for custodial interrogation.The court also considered the applicant’s criminal antecedents, observing that while past cases alone could not justify denial of bail, they were relevant in assessing the possibility of repetition of similar offences and interference with the investigation.The defence argued that the allegations were vague, relevant records had already been furnished, the applicant had cooperated with investigators and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The court, however, held that the precedents cited by the defence were distinguishable and that the seriousness of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation and the possibility of interference with the probe justified rejection of anticipatory bail.Excise officials said they have intensified action against alleged illegal online liquor sales, claiming such operations pose regulatory and public safety challenges. An Excise Department official further alleged that a leading online liquor platform operated an organised illegal network through around 50 outlets across the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, using call centres to receive orders, and claimed nearly 40 outlets had earlier been temporarily shut over alleged online liquor sales and related licence violations. The allegations remain under investigation and have not been adjudicated by the court.
