New Delhi: The Supreme Court said the facts associated with the arrest of former IAS officer Anil Tuteja by the Enforcement Directorate were "glaring" and stressed that it brings forth a "disturbing feature"; while deploring the mode of his arrest by the central agency.
Tuteja was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case related to the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam. The matter came up before a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih.
The bench said the petitioner, Tuteja, on April 20, 2024, at around 4:30 pm was sitting in the ACB office at Raipur, and added, firstly, he was served a summons directing him to appear before ED at 12 am.
“Thereafter, another summon was served while he was in the office of ACB calling upon him to appear before ED at 5.30 pm. Thereafter, he was taken to the office of ED in a van brought by the ED and was interrogated throughout the night and arrested at 4 am", said the bench, adding that "the facts are glaring".
The top court allowed the senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and other counsel, representing Tuteja, to withdraw his appeal. The bench led by Justice Oka also granted him liberty to approach the trial court for bail.
During the hearing today, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the ED, contended before the court that the agency had to take remedial measures to ensure such incidents were avoided. The counsel informed the bench that there was a press release to this effect issued on October 29, 2024.
Singhvi argued that earlier the court quashed the money laundering case registered by the ED on April 8, 2024. He added that three days later, the ED registered a new ECIR (complaint) based on the same set of facts and material. On the aspect of the second case, the bench queried, could the ED rely on the same material from the first ECIR, which was quashed? The bench noted the quashing of the first ECIR was based on the absence of a predicate offence.
The ED's counsel argued that during the investigation into the second complaint, all relevant documents, including statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, were obtained from the investigating officer of the first ECIR, and all these could form the basis of further proceedings.
The bench said it wanted to see if the arrest was illegal. The bench queried Tuteja's counsel, whether they want a detailed finding on the issue, and added that it might have a bearing on the bail, if reasoning were to be recorded. Petitioner's counsel requested the bench to allow them to withdraw the petition with a liberty to apply for bail in the matter.
The apex court on December 5, had expressed its displeasure over the ED hastening to arrest Tuteja in the case. ''It is deplorable. How can you arrest a person in the middle of the night? What is this happening, was it so urgent? You could have called him the next day. He was not some terrorist who would go in with bombs," the bench said then.
The ED claimed illegal profits worth Rs 2,000 crore were earned by a syndicate involving politicians, bureaucrats and private individuals during the period 2019-23 of which Tuteja was an integral part.
