Supreme Court grants bail to Arun Pati Tripathi in Jharkhand liquor scam
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA New Delhi/Ranchi, July 16: The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to Arun Pati Tripathi, former Managing Director of…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
New Delhi/Ranchi, July 16: The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to Arun Pati Tripathi, former Managing Director of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), and another appellant in the alleged Jharkhand liquor scam, making absolute the interim protection from arrest that it had granted earlier.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, on July 14, allowed the appeals after observing that both appellants had complied with its earlier directions by appearing before the Investigating Officer and cooperating with the investigation.
Advocate Shishir Prakash, assisted by advocates Karuna Krishan Thareja and Sthavi Asthana, appeared for Arun Pati Tripathi. The State of Jharkhand was represented by Advocate Pallavi Langar, along with Sujeet Kumar Chaubey and Anushka Raghunath.
Allegations relate to JSBCL liquor scam
The case arises out of FIR No. 09/2025 registered by the Jharkhand Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
According to the prosecution, the Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited (JSBCL) had engaged two placement agencies to supply manpower for retail liquor outlets. During the investigation, the agencies were found to have submitted fake bank guarantees, leading investigators to allege a larger conspiracy involving senior officials and private entities.
The ACB alleged that Arun Pati Tripathi, along with businessman Anwar Dhebar, paid a ₹5 crore bribe to Vinay Kumar Choubey, then Principal Secretary of the Excise and Prohibition Department, in January 2022 to secure an advisory role for the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited. Investigators claimed the conspiracy facilitated the appointment of specific placement agencies in both Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, resulting in financial losses to the state exchequer.
SC notes appellants were not named in FIR
While granting anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court observed that the appellants were not named in the original FIR and were implicated later primarily based on statements made by co-accused.
The Bench also noted that the prosecution’s allegation that Tripathi acted as the chief conspirator and paid the alleged bribe would have to be tested during trial based on evidence led by the prosecution.
The Court further observed that the main accused, Vinay Kumar Choubey, had already secured default bail, while co-accused Vinay Kumar Singh had been granted anticipatory bail. It also took note that two other co-accused had been granted interim protection by the Supreme Court.
Considering these circumstances and the appellants’ compliance with its earlier directions, the Bench held that there was no reason to deny them anticipatory bail.
State can seek cancellation of bail
The Supreme Court directed that both appellants shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called, including on telephonic intimation, and cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
The Bench clarified that if either appellant fails to cooperate or does not appear before the Investigating Officer, the State of Jharkhand would be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional trial court seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail.
The trial court has been directed to decide any such application independently and in accordance with law after allowing the appellants to be heard.
Defence had questioned evidence against Tripathi
When the matter was first heard in May this year, advocate Shishir Prakash argued that Arun Pati Tripathi had no direct role in the alleged liquor scam and functioned only as a consultant to CSMCL under an inter-governmental arrangement approved by the Cabinet.
The defence argued that the consultancy arrangement had ended in March 2023, whereas the alleged tender-related irregularities occurred subsequently. It also contended that the FIR did not name Tripathi and that the prosecution relied largely on statements of co-accused, with no recovery, financial trail or documentary evidence directly linking him to the alleged conspiracy.
The Supreme Court had then granted interim protection from coercive action while directing Tripathi to cooperate with the investigation. With the latest order dated July 14, the apex court has converted that interim relief into anticipatory bail while allowing the investigation to proceed in accordance with law.
