Supreme Court Questions ED’s Evidence in Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam

-

 

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

In the recent Supreme Court proceedings in the case of Arvind Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (SLP(Crl) No. 2715/2025), the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan raised serious concerns regarding the manner in which the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been presenting its prosecution complaints. The Court observed a recurring trend where the ED makes broad allegations without citing specific evidence to substantiate its claims. This observation came during the hearing of Arvind Singh’s bail plea, where the ED accused him of amassing illicit gains amounting to ₹40 crore as part of the alleged ₹2,000-crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam. However, when pressed by the bench, the ED was unable to demonstrate Singh’s direct involvement or financial connection to the companies implicated in the alleged scam. The judges emphasized that for such serious allegations, the prosecution must provide clear evidence linking the accused to the proceeds of crime, such as proof of directorship, shareholding, or managerial control in the relevant entities. The defense argued that Singh had already spent ten months in custody and that the investigation had resulted in voluminous documentation and multiple supplementary complaints, yet no concrete link had been established. The ED countered by asserting the scale of the scam and Singh’s alleged central role, but the Court remained unconvinced by general assertions unsupported by documentary proof. The bench also highlighted that there is no legal requirement for an accused to spend a minimum period in custody before being eligible for bail, and cautioned against allowing the process itself to become punitive. The matter was ultimately adjourned for further hearing, with the Court directing the ED to provide specific material connecting Singh to the alleged proceeds of crime. This case underscores the judiciary’s insistence on evidence-based prosecution and its vigilance against the misuse of investigative powers in economic offenses.

Location: Chhattisgarh, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Supreme Court Clarifies Recovery of Maintenance Arrears Under CrPC: A Landmark Judgment

-
Image
  Supreme Court Clarifies Recovery of Maintenance Arrears Under CrPC: A Landmark Judgment By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reinforced the enforcement mechanisms for the recovery of unpaid maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court clarified that arrears of maintenance can be recovered by treating them as a levy of fine under Section 421 of the CrPC, ensuring that defaulters cannot evade their financial obligations. This ruling is a significant step toward strengthening the legal framework for the protection of dependents, particularly spouses and children, who rely on maintenance for their livelihood. Background of the Case The case involved an appellant wife, Poongodi, and her minor son, who filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC against the respondent husband, Thangavel, for maintenance. The trial court awarded maintenance of ₹300 per month, effective from February 4, 1993. ...
Read more

Supreme Court Clarifies "Readiness and Willingness" Requirement in Specific Performance Cases

-
Image
 Supreme Court Clarifies "Readiness and Willingness" Requirement in Specific Performance Cases Recent Judgment Sets Precedent on Acceptance of Earnest Money Refund By Abhishek Jat, Advocate In a significant ruling that reshapes the landscape of real estate contract enforcement, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a noteworthy judgment in Sangita Sinha v. Bhawana Bhardwaj and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4972 of 2025). The Court has clarified crucial aspects regarding the "readiness and willingness" requirement for specific performance of contracts and established that acceptance of refunded earnest money may render a specific performance claim untenable. Case Background The dispute originated from an unregistered Agreement to Sell executed on January 25, 2008, for a property in Patna valued at ₹25 lakhs. The buyer (respondent) had paid ₹2.51 lakhs in cash and issued three post-dated cheques of ₹2.5 lakhs each. Shortly thereafter, the seller alleged that her si...
Read more

Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Husband Accused Under Sections 376, 377 & 304 IPC: A Legal Analysis Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate

-
Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Husband Accused Under Sections 376, 377 & 304 IPC: A Legal Analysis Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate     Introduction The Chhattisgarh High Court recently delivered a crucial judgment in Gorakhnath Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 891 of 2019), reaffirming the judicial interpretation of marital rape and unnatural offenses under Indian criminal jurisprudence. The Court held that a husband cannot be prosecuted under Section 376 (rape) or Section 377 (unnatural offenses) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for engaging in sexual intercourse, including unnatural sex, with his major wife, even in the absence of her consent. The ruling underscores the long-standing exception in Indian criminal law regarding marital rape and highlights judicial scrutiny over charges framed under Section 304 IPC. Background of the Case The appellant, Gorakhnath Sharma, was convicted by the trial court for offenses under Sections 376, 377,...
Read more