In a sharp rebuke to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Supreme Court observed a consistent pattern in the agency’s prosecution complaints—making serious allegations without citing specific material evidence.
The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while hearing the bail plea of Arvind Singh, an accused in the alleged Rs. 2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam. “We have seen umpteen number of complaints of ED. This is the pattern – just make allegations without any reference to anything,” Justice Oka remarked during the proceedings.
ED Fails to Substantiate Allegations with Concrete Evidence
The comment came after Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for the ED, was unable to show concrete material linking Singh to the alleged illicit earnings of ₹40 crore.
Singh’s counsel argued that his client had already spent 10 months in custody, with the ED filing one main and three supplementary complaints, while the investigation remained ongoing. The case reportedly involves 21 accused, over 25,000 pages of documentary evidence, and statements from more than 150 witnesses.
Countering the bail plea, ASG Raju maintained that bail should not be granted merely on the basis of voluminous material, especially in a ₹2,000 crore scam. “If this argument is accepted, then day one you will get bail on the ground of voluminous material. Forget the nature of the scam,” he said, further adding that less than a year had passed since Singh’s arrest.
Justice Oka clarified that there is no legal threshold mandating one year of custody before granting bail.
ED Pressed for Direct Link Between Arvind Singh and ₹40 Crore
The Court questioned the ED’s failure to establish Singh’s direct connection to the alleged ₹40 crore proceeds. While Raju claimed Singh was closely associated with co-accused Anwar Dhebar, citing WhatsApp chats on liquor policy and counterfeit operations, Justice Oka insisted on specific material connecting Singh personally to the proceeds.
Raju added that the ₹40 crore was jointly earned by Singh and Vikas Agarwal, who had fled to Dubai. When asked if Agarwal was being prosecuted, Raju admitted he was not named as an accused, citing an incomplete investigation.
Justice Oka raised serious concerns about the ED’s conduct: “You have made specific allegation that he earned ₹40 crores, now you are not able to show connection of this man with this or any other company… There is not even an allegation or averment that he is [connected].”
ED’s Allegations on Corporate Links Lack Substance
The ED alleged that a company named Anurag Traders, which supplied empty bottles, transacted with entities allegedly linked to Singh. The bottles were supposedly sold at inflated prices, earning a ₹5 margin per bottle across ₹900 crore in volume. Raju contended that Singh is related to Amit Singh, who received the funds.
However, the bench remained unconvinced, pointing out that there was no evidence suggesting Arvind Singh held any official role—such as director, majority shareholder, or managing director—in the companies in question.
When pressed further, Raju asserted Singh ran the companies informally and sought time to provide additional documentation.
Despite repeated assurances, Justice Oka reiterated, “We have seen umpteen number of complaints of the ED. This is the pattern – just make allegations without any reference to anything.”
The matter has been listed for further hearing on Friday, with the Court directing the ED to produce clear, substantive evidence connecting Singh to the alleged ₹40 crore proceeds of crime.
Case Details
Case Title: Arvind Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: SLP(Crl) No. 2715/2025
Read More: Supreme Court Panel Submits Inquiry Report on Justice Yashwant Varma to Chief Justice of India
