Supreme Court: In a batch of 13 Special Leave Petitions (‘SLPs’) filed in connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case, the division bench comprising of M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. dismissed all the petitions. The SLPs challenged various FIRs registered in the States of Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh, an Enforcement Case Information Report (‘ECIR’), as well as the rejection of bail applications, including one filed by IAS officer Anil Tuteja.
The liquor scam case traces back to a 2022 chargesheet filed by the Income Tax Department in a Delhi Court. According to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), government officials allegedly accepted bribes from liquor distillers in exchange for manipulating liquor procurement through the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (‘CSMCL’). The ED further alleged that country liquor was sold off the books, and that distillers operated as a cartel, fixing market shares among themselves by paying kickbacks to officials.
The Court observed that the SLPs fell into four categories:
-
Challenge to the FIR registered in Chhattisgarh
-
Challenge to the FIR registered in Uttar Pradesh
-
Challenge to the ECIR
-
Challenge to the rejection of bail applications
On the issue of FIRs, it was contended by the petitioners that the FIRs were registered based on information provided under interim orders of the Court, and that invoking Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) was inappropriate. They also argued that since chargesheets had already been filed in both FIRs, the second one should merely be treated as an additional chargesheet to the first.
Rejecting these arguments, the Court held that Section 66(2) of the PMLA empowered investigating officers to share material with other agencies and that such power was distinct from any prior proceedings or interim orders. It further clarified that the two FIRs were based on different sets of materials and witnesses specific to each state, and thus, could not be merged.
“The power under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA, 2002 is distinct and separate. Exercise of the said power has got nothing to do with the proceedings pending at the relevant point of time with the interim order, and so also the final order passed. In fact, on a perusal of Section 66 of the PMLA, 2002, we find that it is a mandatory duty of the investigating officer to share the materials collected with the other agencies concerned”
The Court stressed that while some of the materials may be common, the conclusions drawn from additional evidence could differ. Therefore, it held that the contentions raised by the petitioners, regardless of whether the information was provided earlier or later, were irrelevant in the context of the distinct investigations conducted by different State agencies.
In relation to IAS Anil Tuteja’s bail plea, the Court noted that while many co-accused had been granted bail, the seriousness of the charges, ongoing investigation, and his role warranted continued custody. The Court specifically observed that granting bail at this stage would impede further investigation, particularly since the case involved multiple accused and voluminous records. As a result, his bail application was rejected.
Finally, the Court directed the Enforcement Directorate and State agencies to complete the investigation and file the additional chargesheet within three months. It granted liberty to the petitioners to file regular or anticipatory bail applications thereafter, which are to be considered on their own merits.
The interim orders passed earlier in the matter were vacated, and all pending applications were disposed of.
[Anil Tuteja v Union of India, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11790/2024, decided on 16-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. DS Naidu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Ms. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv., Ms. Nanakey Kalra, Adv., Mr. Amit, AOR, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. Harsh Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv., Mr. Kaustabh Bhattacharjee, Adv. ,Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shishir Prakash, Adv., Ms. Karuna Krishan Thareja, Adv., Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR, Ms. Nayan Gupta, Adv., Ms. Nanakey Kalra, Adv., Mrs. Nanakey Kalra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR, Ms. Charu Singhal, Adv., Mr. Shantanu Singh, Adv., Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan, Adv.3, Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv., Mr. Kumar Abhinandan, Adv., Mr. K Abhinandan, Adv., Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv., Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv., Mr. Aaditya Dixit, Adv., Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv., Mr. Animesh Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. Prakhar Bhardwaj, Adv., Ms. Anushka Gupta, Adv., Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Adv., Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vivek Sharma, A.A.G., Mr. Ravi Sharma, D.A.G., Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR, Ms. Madhulika Rai Sharma, Adv., Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv., Ms. Mugdha Pande, Adv.
