Madras High Court denies statutory bail to Ankit Tiwari, ED officer accused in bribery case. Justice M Dhandapani’s ruling garners widespread attention in legal and public spheres.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: Yesterday(on 15th March), The Madras High Court, made headlines by rejecting the statutory bail plea of Ankit Tiwari, an Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer embroiled in a bribery scandal. Justice M Dhandapani of the Madurai bench delivered the verdict.
Ankit Tiwari found himself in the eye of the storm when he was apprehended last December by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) under serious allegations of accepting a bribe.
The High Court’s decision was heavily influenced by a preceding Supreme Court order. Justice Dhandapani, in his ruling, emphasized the delicate balance between an individual’s right to personal liberty and the overarching judicial orders.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Initiates Consultation on Reforming Judicial Vacations
He stated:
“While acknowledging the paramount importance of the petitioner’s personal liberty, it is crucial to adhere to the Supreme Court’s directives. Granting default bail could potentially prejudice the respondent’s rights, given the Supreme Court’s stay order on filing the charge sheet. Interpreting the apex court’s order differently would not only disrespect its authority but also lead to contempt, a scenario this Court cannot condone.”
This case emerged when Tiwari’s arrest by the DVAC, following allegations of him receiving a bribe amounting to Rs.20 lakh. This incident spurred the ED to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention, requesting a transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a move that led to the Supreme Court issuing a notice and staying the DVAC’s probe on January 25.
ALSO READ: Madras HC junks plea agaisnt OPS expulsion
This continued as Tiwari’s quest for freedom was met with resistance, culminating in the rejection of his statutory bail application by a special court in Dindigul district on February 6, which in turn led to the appeal in the High Court.
