Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi

Manvi MittalCase Summary

Appeal against the grant of bail in a case involving money laundering through modifying the tender bids by hacking the e-procurement portal

Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi
In the Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal 1401, 1402/2023
Before Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Decided on May 12, 2023

Relevancy of the Case: Appeal against the grant of bail in a case involving money laundering through modifying the tender bids by hacking the e-procurement portal

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
  • The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Section 7(c), 13(2))
  • The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Section 45)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 420, 468, 471)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The Economics Offences Wing (EOW), Bhopal, registered an FIR against 20 persons and companies for tampering to change the amount of three tenders worth ₹1,769 crores. These tenders are e-tender numbers 91, 93, and 94 of Madhya Pradesh Water Corporation. The accused persons colluded to make three companies the lowest bidders.
  • EOW Bhopal transferred the investigation to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) when it found that the accused committed crimes under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
  • ED arrested the first respondent on January 19, 2021. The accused filed a bail application before the High Court of Telangana. The High Court accepted his bail application and granted him bail. ED has challenged this before the Supreme Court.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court erred in granting the bail. The court did not consider that ED is still continuing its investigation. Moreover, the court did not consider the seriousness of the offence under Section 45 of the PMLA.
  • The respondent’s counsel submitted that he had been on bail since March 2021. At present, the Supreme Court should not interfere with the impugned orders.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The High Court did not consider the nature and seriousness of the offence. Moreover, the court failed to note the ED’s investigation. Furthermore, the court cannot grant bail merely because the other accused are acquitted.

Final Decision

  • The bench quashed the bail application and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision.