We've Seen A Pattern Of ED Just Making Allegations Without Specific Evidence In Many Cases : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday remarked that there is a pattern of the Directorate of Enforcement making allegations in the prosecution complaints without referring to specific material to support them.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the bail plea of Arvind Singh, an accused in the alleged 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 hearing.

The Court made this remark after Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, failed to show specific material linking Singh to alleged illegal earnings of Rs. 40 crores.

Singh's counsel argued that he had spent 10 months in custody and that the ED had filed one main and three supplementary complaints, with the investigation still ongoing. He said the case involved 21 accused, over 25,000 pages of documents, and statements from more than 150 witnesses.

Raju argued that bail cannot be granted only on the basis of the volume of material and contended that it is a Rs. 2000 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. He added that a year had not passed since Singh's arrest.

Justice Oka clarified that there is no legal yardstick of one-year custody before grant of bail.

Raju maintained that Singh was central to a parallel liquor business. When Singh's counsel cited the bail granted to public servants Anil Tuteja and Arun Pati Tripathi, Raju said those were due to lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC and that Singh's case was on a different footing, as sanction is not required to prosecute him.

Raju informed the Court that as far as Singh was concerned, the investigation was complete. The Court asked the ED to specify the material relied upon to allege that Singh had earned Rs. 40 crore in the scam.

Raju submitted that Singh was closely associated with co-accused Anwar Dhebar and that their WhatsApp chats showed discussions on liquor policy, supplier market shares, and supply of duplicate holograms used to sell counterfeit liquor through government shops. He said that the money was clandestinely removed from the shop, while it was falsely shown that genuine bottles had been sold.

However, Justice Oka repeatedly pressed the ED for specific evidence connecting Singh to the alleged proceeds of crime. “These are general allegations. What is the material to show that he has earned Rs. 40 crores?” he asked.

Raju said the amount was jointly earned by Singh and another person, Vikas Agarwal, who had absconded to Dubai. Justice Oka asked whether Agarwal was being prosecuted. Raju said he is not named as an accused, adding that an LOC had been issued against him.

Justice Oka questioned the ED's conduct, pointing out that despite making allegations across four complaints, Agarwal had not been shown as an accused. Raju explained that a complaint can only be filed against him once investigation concerning him is complete, and that there was no requirement to name him in the ECIR.

The bench pressed the ED to show how the Rs. 40 crore was connected to Arvind Singh. Raju pointed to bank account transactions of Welcome Distilleries with Anurag Traders mentioned in the complaint.

He submitted that Anurag Traders, which manufactured empty bottles, supplied them to two companies linked to the accused instead of supplying them directly to distilleries. These bottles were allegedly sold by the accused's companies at inflated rates, earning a Rs. 5 margin per bottle. Raju said the total volume amounted to Rs. 900 crore and claimed that Arvind Singh is the relative of Amit Singh, who received the money.

Justice Oka noted that there was no specific material showing Arvind Singh's connection to Anurag Traders or any of the companies. He asked whether Singh was a director, majority shareholder, or managing director in any of the relevant entities.

Justice Oka said, “you have made specific allegation that he earned Rs. 40 crores, now you are not able to show connection of this man with this or any other company. The method should that you should state whether he is the director of those companies, whether is majority shareholder, whether he is Managing Director. Something has to be there.... There is not even an allegation or averment that he is…”

Raju responded that Singh was running those companies and sought time to provide the relevant details. He added that a person could be responsible for the conduct of a company even without being a managing director.

Justice Oka reiterated his concern, stating, “We have seen umpteen number of complaints of the ED. This is the pattern – just make allegations without any reference to anything.” Raju responded that such an impression was incorrect in this case and requested time to provide all the details. Ultimately, the Court kept the matter for further hearing on Friday.

Related - 'Out Of 5000 PMLA Cases, Only 40 Convictions In 10 Years' : Supreme Court Says ED Must Focus On Quality Prosecution

'What Is Rate Of Conviction In PMLA Cases? You Keep Person In Jail For Years' : Supreme Court To ED While Granting Interim Bail

Someday You Must Find Out How Many PMLA Complaints Ended In Trial & Conviction: Supreme Court Tells ED

2 Convictions In 193 ED Cases Filed Against Political Leaders In Last 10 Years : Centre Tells Parliament

6.42% Conviction Rate In Cases Filed By ED Since 2019 : Union Government Tells Parliament

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 2715/2025

Case Title – Arvind Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement