New Delhi (TIP)- The Supreme Court on Wednesday, Feb12, took exception to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) continuing to keep Indian Telecommunication Service officer Arun Kumar Tripathi in custody even after the order taking cognisance of its complaint against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam had been quashed by the High Court. Directing that he be released on bail, a bench of Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said that the “concept of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be to ensure that a person should remain in jail”.
The ED had arrested Tripathi on August 8, 2024, but the Chhattisgarh High Court quashed the Special Court order taking cognisance of the complaint against him on February 7, 2025, saying no sanction had been obtained to prosecute him.
The HC based its decision on the November 6, 2024 decision by a two-judge bench presided by Justice Oka which said Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) that mandates prior sanction from the government to take cognisance of an offence against public servants will apply to cases under the PMLA too.
Questioning the ED, Justice Oka asked Additional Solicitor General S V Raju Wednesday: “If cognisance has been quashed, why should the accused be in jail?”
Raju said that the quashing of the order taking cognisance did not make the arrest illegal. He added that sanction had now been obtained and the agency had again applied for cognisance.
Drawing parallels with the alleged misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises cruelty against a married woman by her husband or his relative, Justice Oka said: “Concept of PMLA cannot be to ensure that a person should remain in jail. I will tell you frankly, looking at several cases, See what happened in 498A cases, if this is the approach of the ED… if the tendency is to keep the person somehow in jail, even after cognisance is quashed, what can be said?”
Raju contended that many complaints were filed by the ED before the SC mandated sanction last year and added “the order quashing cognisance will not make the accused entitled to regular bail”, but the bench did not agree.
“What kind of signals are we giving? Order taking cognisance is quashed and the person is in custody since August 2024!” said Justice Oka.
Raju said the quashing was not because no offence wasn’t made out but for lack of sanction which has been obtained now.