Dindigul court denies bail to ED official Ankit Tiwari caught on graft charge

Special Court said probe yet to be completed; offence by accused was grave in nature

Updated - December 05, 2023 07:04 pm IST

Published - December 05, 2023 07:03 pm IST - DINDIGUL

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, on Tuesday denied bail to Enforcement Officer, Ankit Tiwari, of Enforcement Directorate, Madurai, who was arrested by the DVAC on charges of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹20 lakh from a doctor in Dindigul on November 1.

The CJM, J. Mohana, who is the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, did not allow his petition, stating the offence committed by the accused was grave in nature. Besides, the judge accepted the claim of the prosecution that the investigation was in an initial stage and all witnesses had to be examined and documents were yet to be collected.

Counsel for the accused, M. Vivek Bharathi, claimed that Mr. Tiwari never demanded money from the complainant. He could not understand the ‘evil plan’ designed by the complainant. Detaining him in prison would affect his family and spoil his health. The officer would not abscond and not tamper with the prosecution if he was released on bail. He was ready to abide by any stringent bail conditions and was willing to furnish sufficient sureties, Mr. Bharathi said.

However, Special Public Prosecutor, R. Anuradha, appearing for the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, objected to it, stating that the accused, being a public servant, had abused his official position and indulged in corrupt practice. The allegation of undue advantage obtained by the accused was serious in nature.

Stating the investigation into the case was in a nascent stage and all the witnesses had to be examined and more documents and material evidences collected, enlarging him on bail would lead to tampering of witnesses and hamper the probe, Ms. Anuradha said.

The DVAC sleuths had caught the officer red-handed with the bribe money following the complaint from the doctor. The complaint was that the accused had sought ₹3 crore for not taking action against him and reduced the demand to ₹51 lakh.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.