Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has ruled that an accused facing a money laundering probe can't be enlarged on bail on the ground of filing of chargesheet in predicate offence. Court said that both the investigations are distinct and different.

A bench of Justices M R Shah and C T Ravikumar set aside the Telangana High Court's orders which granted bail to an accused in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the e-tendering scam in Madhya Pradesh.

The court allowed appeals by the ED and directed the respondent accused Mantena Constructions Private Ltd chairman Manthena Srinivasaraju and his Bhopal-based associate Aditya Tripathi to surrender within a week.

They were accused of tempering of e-tenders issued by Madhya Pradesh Water Corporation for works worth Rs 1769.00 crores after colluding with senior officials of IT service providers.

The court directed the high court to examine the matters afresh.

It noted in its order what had been weighed with the high court was that a chargesheet had been filed against the respective respondent accused and therefore, the investigation was complete.

"However, the high court failed to notice and appreciate that the investigation with respect to the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on", the court said.

"Merely because for the predicated offences the chargesheet might have been filed, it cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002," the bench said.

"Investigation for the predicated offences and the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act are different and distinct. Therefore, the High Court has taken into consideration the irrelevant consideration," the bench concluded.

After hearing Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj and senior advocates Rakesh Khanna and Aman Lekhi for the respondent-accused, the court also said the high court neither considered the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 nor considered the seriousness of the offences alleged against accused for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002.

"The High Court has not at all considered the fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is still going on and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging respective respondent No. 1 on bail are unsustainable and the matters are required to be remitted back to the High Court for afresh decision on the bail applications," the bench said.

It was alleged that e-tenders of MP Water Works Department were tempered to change the price bid of M/s GVPR Engineers Limited, M/s The Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited and M/s IMC Project India Limited to make them the lowest bidders.

Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal conducted investigation and filed the chargesheet on July 4, 2019 in an FIR registered on April 10, 2019.

The Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, thereafter, initiated its probe and arrested the respondent accused on January 19, 2021.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement vs. Aditya Tripathi