A law officer's unexpected criticism of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for submitting a "half-baked" reply during a Supreme Court bail hearing has drawn attention to procedural lapses in the high-profile Chhattisgarh liquor scam case. The officer later clarified the remark as a miscommunication, urging the court to proceed with the hearing.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, was deliberating on the bail appeal of Arun Pati Tripathi, an Indian Telecom Services officer. Tripathi challenged the Chhattisgarh High Court's October 25, 2024, decision denying him bail in connection with the ₹2,200 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam.
Tripathi, formerly the special secretary of the excise department and ex-managing director of Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), was arrested by the state's Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in May 2024.
During the proceedings, the law officer representing the ED unexpectedly criticized the agency's own submission, describing it as "half-baked." This remark highlighted potential internal communication issues within the agency. The officer subsequently termed the comment a miscommunication and requested the court to continue with the hearing.
The bench expressed concern over WhatsApp communications presented as evidence, indicating that Tripathi had shared official hologram tender documents with other accused individuals, including Anwar Dhebar and Anil Tuteja.
Anwar Dhebar, a businessman with political connections, is alleged to be a central figure in the scam, accused of orchestrating a cartel that collected commissions from liquor retailers and influenced policy decisions. This was purportedly facilitated by Tripathi and former IAS officer Anil Tuteja.
The court noted that the investigation into the money trail was still ongoing and emphasized the need for a thorough probe. The bench stated, "After reading these WhatsApp chats, we need to give the state a couple of months to complete the investigation as the money trail still remains to be traced."
Despite Tripathi's counsel arguing for bail based on the duration of his custody and the completion of charge sheets, the court decided against granting bail at this stage. The bench remarked, "Considering the role attributed to you in framing policy and with regard to manipulation of software, let there be a complete investigation."