SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, May 4: The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection from coercive action to Arun Pati Tripathi, a former Managing Director of Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), in connection with the alleged Jharkhand liquor scam.
Issuing notice to the State of Jharkhand, the court directed Tripathi to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer on alternate days until further orders. The matter is scheduled to be heard again after four weeks.
Who is Arun Pati Tripathi?
Arun Pati Tripathi is an Indian Telecom Service (ITS) officer who has held key administrative and advisory roles in government-linked institutions. He previously served as the Managing Director of CSMCL, where he was associated with policy advisory work under inter-state arrangements.
SLP Arguments: ‘No Direct Role, No Evidence’
Appearing for Tripathi, advocate Shishir Prakash, along with Karuna Thareja and Sthavi Asthana, argued in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) that Tripathi had no direct role in the alleged irregularities. The defence maintained that Tripathi acted only as a consultant through CSMCL under an inter-governmental arrangement, which had been duly approved at the Cabinet level.
A key argument highlighted in the SLP is the temporal disconnect—the consultancy ended on March 13, 2023, while the alleged irregularities and tender-related transactions began from June 2023 onwards. The petition also points out that the FIR does not name Tripathi and does not attribute any specific overt act to him. It further argued that the prosecution’s case relies mainly on statements of the co-accused, with no recovery, financial trail, or documentary evidence linking him to the alleged offence.
Parity, Cooperation and Legal Safeguards
The defence has also raised the issue of parity, stating that several co-accused, including those directly involved in policy execution and financial transactions, have already been granted bail. In comparison, Tripathi is argued to be on a better legal footing.
On cooperation, the SLP states that Tripathi was already complying with Supreme Court directions in a separate matter requiring his presence before authorities in Raipur. His inability to appear before Jharkhand authorities was communicated, along with his willingness to cooperate. The plea also challenges the validity of notice issued under Section 35(3) BNSS, citing improper service.
The defence further disputes the High Court’s finding on sanction, arguing that since the allegations relate to policy recommendations and official functions, protection under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act should apply.
High Court Had Denied Bail, Citing Serious Economic Offence
The Jharkhand High Court had earlier rejected Tripathi’s anticipatory bail plea, describing the case as a serious economic offence involving a deep-rooted conspiracy. It relied on witness statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and held that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger conspiracy.
The High Court had also observed that a sanction under Section 17A was not required in cases involving bribery allegations and noted a lack of cooperation by the petitioner during the investigation.
With the Supreme Court now granting interim relief, the case has moved into a crucial legal phase, where the evidentiary basis of the allegations and the applicability of statutory safeguards will be closely examined.
