SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, April 24: The Jharkhand High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Arun Pati Tripathi, a key accused in the alleged liquor scam being probed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
Tripathi, former Managing Director of Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), is accused of being part of a deep-rooted conspiracy that allegedly caused significant financial loss to the Jharkhand government. The prosecution alleged that he, along with the co-accused, paid ₹5 crore as a bribe to the then Excise Secretary, Vinay Kumar Choubey, in January 2022.
Court Cites Strong Evidence on Record
The court noted that multiple witness statements recorded under Section 183 of BNSS (equivalent to Section 164 CrPC) directly implicate the petitioner. These statements, the court observed, carry higher evidentiary value and clearly indicate his involvement in the alleged offence.
Economic Offence, Deep-Rooted Conspiracy: Court
The High Court treated the case as a serious economic offence involving a well-planned conspiracy affecting public revenue. It observed that such offences are distinct from ordinary crimes as they have wider ramifications on the economy and public trust.
The court noted that the allegations relate to the manipulation of excise policy, illegal payments, and fraudulent practices in the liquor trade, which allegedly caused loss to the state exchequer. It emphasised that economic offences require a different approach, as they are often committed through calculated and systematic means.
The court further observed that the materials collected during the investigation prima facie show the petitioner’s involvement in the conspiracy, and the nature of the allegations necessitates a thorough and unhindered investigation.
Custodial Interrogation Necessary
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to unearth the larger conspiracy and to confront him with the co-accused and witnesses.
Non-Cooperation in Investigation Highlighted
The court also pointed out that the petitioner failed to cooperate with the Jharkhand investigation despite notice. His argument that he was bound by the Supreme Court directions to appear before authorities in Chhattisgarh was not accepted, as no such difficulty was properly placed on record.
No Sanction Required in Bribery Case
Rejecting the plea regarding the lack of sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court held that prior sanction is not required in cases involving allegations of bribery.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, available evidence, and lack of cooperation, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
