The Supreme Court heard 13 linked cases in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam, telling ED custody must continue for one accused and dividing matters into four categories. Justice Sundresh said, “We’ll take up the batch first, then individual matters.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a large batch of petitions connected to the Rs 2,000 crore liquor scam in Chhattisgarh, which is being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The matter was listed before a Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case.
At the very beginning of the hearing, Justice Sundresh asked,
“How many cases in total?”
Responding, the counsel informed the Court,
“13, My Lords.”
The counsel then explained that there were different types of cases before the Bench.
ALSO READ: Indian Judiciary Finally Embraces Hands-Off Approach to Arbitration: Justice N Kotiswar Singh
These included petitions seeking quashing of FIRs registered by Chhattisgarh Police based on ED’s inputs, similar FIRs filed by Uttar Pradesh Police on ED’s direction, challenges to FIRs registered directly by the ED by citing prior proceedings, and bail applications that came up from the Chhattisgarh FIR.
To bring order to the hearings, Justice Sundresh remarked,
“We’ll take up the batch first, then individual matters.”
One of the counsels argued against the dual investigation, stating,
“On the UP aspect our point is simple you cannot have the same liquor scam investigated simultaneously in both Chhattisgarh and UP.”
Appearing for accused bureaucrat Anil Tuteja, his lawyer submitted that his client was being treated unfairly, pointing out,
“All co accused have bail, one on the same footing is still in jail.”
Another counsel informed the Court,
“Eight granted bail citing delay. I was last questioned in Sept 2024, no progress since.”
The selective manner of arrests was also brought up before the Bench.
Counsel argued,
“19 excise officers got bail, but no distillery owners arrested shows selective action.”
After hearing the submissions, Justice M.M. Sundresh declared,
“Leave granted in all matters.”
In its order, the Supreme Court directed that the custody of one of the respondents (Respondent No. 2) be granted to the ED for four weeks, with a condition that she must fully cooperate with the agency.
The anticipatory bail granted earlier to Respondent No. 1 was set aside, but the Court allowed him to apply for regular bail.
The Bench also categorised all the appeals into four groups: FIRs filed by Chhattisgarh Police, FIRs filed by Uttar Pradesh Police, challenges to Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs), and bail rejection cases.
The Court noted that Section 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 had been wrongly invoked because the FIRs were based on the same facts, and chargesheets had already been filed in those cases.
However, the Court refused to quash the ECIR itself. It clarified that interim orders passed earlier do not make the collected evidence unusable.
Finally, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) that sought further relief.
Case Title:
The Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Tuteja and Ors.
[SLP(Crl) No. 6323-6324/2020]
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on the Liquor Scam
