SC raps ED over custody of liquor scam accused
Questioning the approach of ED, a bench headed by justice Abhay S Oka said, “What kind of signal are you (ED) sending?”
The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for keeping in custody former Chhattisgarh excise official Arun Pati Tripathi , an accused in the Chhattisgarh liquor case, without challenging a February 7 order of the Chhattisgarh high court (HC) which held that the ED case did not have the requisite sanction.
Questioning the approach of ED, a bench headed by justice Abhay S Oka said, “What kind of signal are you (ED) sending. A person is in custody since August 8, 2024? As of today, there is no order of a court taking cognisance of the complaint against him and still he is custody?”
Granting bail to Tripathi, the bench noted that on October 5, 2024 the special court hearing cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) took cognisance of the ED complaint (or charge sheet) filed against Tripathi and other accused accusing them of money laundering charges arising out of irregularities in liquor sale in the state, with the amount involved being in excess of ₹2,000 crore.
Tripathi challenged this order before the Chhattisgarh high court claiming that the order taking cognizance was passed without obtaining sanction. Being an Indian Telecom Service officer, the acts alleged against him were of the period when he was serving on deputation in the Chhattisgarh excise department (between 2019 and 2022). The HC order of February 7, 2025 held his further custody illegal and quashed the October 5 order on the ground that prosecution sanction under section 197 of the code of criminal procedure (CrPC) was lacking against Tripathi.
Interestingly, both ED and its lawyers claimed ignorance of the HC order.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju appearing for ED said that he was not aware of the HC order. The court asked him to take instructions from ED officials present in court , but they too too feigned ignorance of the same.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora appearing for Tripathi along with advocate Mohit Ram accepted that the HC order is yet to be uploaded. However, they produced ED’s application moved on February 7 before the Special PMLA court requesting for the trial to resume as the ED had obtained sanction on February 6 to proceed against Tripathi. That application of ED clearly acknowledged the HC order of February 7 that came in Tripathi’s favour.
The bench did not take kindly to ED’s suppression of facts. “We have some serious grievance . It took you five minutes to confirm if the order of cognisance is quashed. Your ED officials knew and they suppressed this fact from us. ED must come clean.”
The court also questioned the silence of ED officials who failed to disclose to the apex court, the subsequent application moved in the trial court on February 7. “ The order of the HC may not have uploaded, but it was pronounced in open court when some ED official may have remained present.”
The court also pulled up the agency for not being fair to the trial court either.
ASG Raju denied any suppression of facts on part of ED and said that the HC order cannot be challenged in the absence of a copy of the judgment being made available.
The law officer told the court that non-grant of sanction was a technical fault that should not come in the way of continuing with Tripathi’s custody as the HC has not commented on the merits of the case. He reminded the court that Tripathi is accused of running a parallel excise ministry in the state along with former bureaucrat Anil Tuteja and businessman Anwar Dhebar.
“This is a very serious case where bureaucrats, instead of serving the country, have milked the system and fleeced the state for their personal interests and laundered money to Dubai and Netherlands for the education of their children. The court should not be seen as giving any kind of protection to a person who is involved in such a serious crime,” Raju said.
But the bench pointed out that Tripathi had not been “convicted yet”.
Directing the trial court to release him after imposing suitable conditions, the bench said, “In view of the peculiar facts of this case, custody of appellant cannot be allowed to continue. As there are serious allegations against him, the special court can enlarge appellant on bail subject to stringent conditions including surrender of passport and appellant furnishing an undertaking that in case cognisance is taken, he will attend the special court and cooperate with the special court for early disposal of case.”
Tripathi was the chairman of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited and served as special secretary in the state excise department and was alleged to have facilitated businessmen with political links to run a cartel within the excise department in return for kickbacks from liquor retailers.