Everything Can't Be Placed On Affidavit As It Will Paint Very Bad Picture Of Judiciary: ED Tells Supreme Court In Challenge Against Bail Granted To Anil Tuteja

Today, while expressing difficulty in placing all facts in the Enforcement Directorate's case against former IAS officer Anil Tuteja on an affidavit, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju submitted before the Supreme Court that "there is something that cannot be placed on an affidavit, because it will paint a very bad picture as far as the judiciary is concerned."

The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing ED's challenge to the anticipatory bail granted to Anil Tuteja.

At the outset, the Counsel for Anil Tuteja contended, "This is the anticipatory bail that was granted by the High Court, which is under challenge, four years have passed."

ASG Raju submitted, "No, no. There are many other things in this." He submitted that today the matter is only for fixing the date for the final hearing.

While referring to the previous ruling dated April 29, 2024, of the Court in the SLP, Justice Oka said, "You must file an affidavit, what is there against them? How they have misused it (Anticipatory Bail)?"

To this, ASG Raju contended, "There is something that cannot be placed on an affidavit, because it will paint a very bad picture as far as the judiciary is concerned."

Counsel for Tuteja opposed the ASG's submission and argued that the same contention was made last time as well. "Four years have passed. No prosecution complaint, no violation, my Lords. I have appeared seven times," he argued.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the State of Chattisgarh, submitted that there is a sealed envelope filed in this case.

Justice Oka further asked ASG Raju to read the April 29 Order and quoted, "The learned ASG appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner will place on record an affidavit and documents in support of the contention that the facility of anticipatory bail granted under the impugned order has been misused by the respondents (Anil Tuteja and Alok Shukla). We permit the learned ASG to do so within a period of three weeks from today today. Within three weeks from filing of the said affidavit, it will be open for the respondents to file an affidavit dealing with the aforesaid affidavit."

ASG Raju respondent: "Yes, my Lords! I will point out that there were transcripts where interference is sought to be made at every stage, so that bail can be granted. Even the affidavit which is to be filed by the other side is being vetted by the accused. I will point out everything."

"Sorry, how does judiciary come into picture? We didn't understand it," the Bench remarked.

ASG Raju contended, "Very well, my Lord! I will place the affidavit."

The Court clarified that it just wants to know whether there has been any objectionable conduct on the part of the accused.

The Counsel for Tuteja submitted that no prosecution complaint has been filed in the present case, the ECIR is from 2019, and that the ED has not done anything in these five years. "Each time I have been called, I have gone, furnished documents, and given my statement. My Lord, if they can't finish the investigation in five years, 2019 ECIR," he argued.

Justice Oka said, "Is it not disturbing that the 2019 ECIR, today we are in 2024. Investigation is not complete. Complaint is not filed, and the order is of August 2020, granting anticipatory bail."

"I have some hurdles to cross, I will cross the hurdles, my Lords may give me one last opportunity. I will do it," the ASG contended.

Accordingly, the Court granted time to ED to file an affidavit and posted the matter for further hearing on August 2.

In April, the Apex Court had quashed the money laundering case against former IAS officer Anil Tuteja and his son Yash in the alleged Rs 2,000 crore liquor scam in Chhattisgarh, saying there were no proceeds of crime. The Court had quashed the complaint after noting that since no ex-facie scheduled offence (main offence) exists against them, no offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was made out. "As there is no scheduled offence, there cannot be any proceeds of crime as defined under clause 2(u) of the PMLA. If there is no proceeds of crime, the offence under PMLA is not made out," the Bench had ruled.

In the prosecution complaint, the ED's version of a chargesheet, filed in the special PMLA court, the anti-money laundering agency had said that former IAS officer Anil Tuteja is the "kingpin" of the syndicate involved in illegal supply of liquor in Chhattisgarh.

Cause Title: The Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Anil Tuteja [SLP (Crl) No. 6323-6324/2020]