The Supreme Court expressed dismay on Tuesday over the Directorate of Enforcement’s (ED) prolonged delay in concluding the investigation into the 2015 Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam related to corruption within Chhattisgarh’s Public Distribution System (PDS).
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih granted the ED a two-week deadline to submit an affidavit demonstrating that Alok Shukla and Anil Tuteja, former NAN Chairman and Managing Director respectively, were abusing their anticipatory bail. The ED is contesting the anticipatory bail granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court in 2020.
Justice Oka voiced concern, remarking, “Is it not disturbing that in a 2019 ECIR, today we are in 2024, and the investigation is not complete, complaint under PMLA is not filed?” This followed Additional Solicitor General SV Raju’s reluctance to file an affidavit, citing potential damage to the judiciary’s reputation.
In 2022, the ED claimed collusion between the accused and judicial authorities, alleging that a high court judge was in contact with individuals aiding the accused.
The Supreme Court highlighted a previous order recording Raju’s promise that the ED would file an affidavit to substantiate the claim that Shukla and Tuteja were misusing their bail. The court questioned the relevance of judiciary’s involvement in the alleged bail misuse.
Raju proposed filing the evidence in a sealed cover, which was opposed by the defense counsel, referencing the court’s stance against sealed cover submissions.
The ED’s special leave petition (SLP) challenges the Chhattisgarh HC’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to Tuteja and Shukla, who had sought bail to avoid arrest related to an ECIR initially registered in Raipur and later moved to New Delhi. They face charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Background
In 2015, the Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offences Wing (ACB/EOW) lodged an FIR against Shiv Shankar Bhatt and 26 others, including Tuteja, under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 109 and 120B of the IPC.
The ACB/EOW’s supplementary charge-sheet alleged corruption and conspiracy, citing a pen drive seized from Tuteja’s personal assistant, which detailed illegal financial transactions. Allegedly, Shukla and Tuteja pocketed Rs. 2,21,94,000 and Rs. 1,51,43,000, respectively, between May 2014 and February 2015 through corrupt practices in rice procurement.
Following ED’s summons on March 13, 2020, the accused applied for anticipatory bail. They argued that they had already been granted anticipatory bail for the predicate offence, the trial for which was stalled, and no departmental action had been taken against them.
They noted that while prosecution sanction was given in July 2016, the supplementary charge-sheet was only filed in December 2019. The ECIR case began on January 9, 2019, with summons issued in March 2020. Witnesses, including rice millers and NAN employees, reportedly denied any bribe demands or illegal activity involvement. The accused asserted they had fully cooperated with the investigation, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.
The ED countered, asserting the applications should have first been filed at the Sessions Court, questioning the High Court’s jurisdiction. However, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld its authority, noting concurrent jurisdiction for Section 438 CrPC applications, and granted anticipatory bail, acknowledging the applicants’ cooperation and the absence of direct evidence necessitating custody.
