The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail petition filed by Enforcement Officer R. Ankit Tiwari of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), who was arrested by the sleuths of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on the charges of demanding and accepting bribe.
The case of the prosecution was that a doctor, Suresh Babu of Dindigul district, preferred a complaint on November 30 alleging that the ED Officer contacted him on October 29 asking him to appear for an inquiry in a case of disproportionate assets.
The complainant alleged that Ankit Tiwari demanded ₹3 crore as bribe to close the pending case against the complainant. Later, the petitioner reduced the demand to ₹51 lakh and wanted the amount by November 1. It was said that the complainant gave ₹20 lakh to the petitioner on November 1 on Natham — Madurai Road. The incident was allegedly recorded on a camera fixed in the complainant’s car.
The petitioner is said to have demanded the balance amount. Not willing to part with any more money, the doctor preferred a complaint with the DVAC. Based on the complaint, a first information report was registered against the petitioner.
On December 1, a trap proceeding was conducted by the DVAC officials. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and remanded in judicial custody. The petitioner said he had not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
The State submitted that the investigation was in the initial stage. Some higher ED officials were involved and it had to be investigated. If the petitioner was released on bail the investigation would be affected and there were chances for him tampering with the evidence. The State further submitted that forensic reports were awaited and it was not known how many people were targeted.
Justice V. Sivagnanam, who heard the petition, observed that the State’s submission that it was suspecting the involvement of some higher officials could not be ignored. Thus, in totality of the circumstances of the case, the reasons given by the State for declining bail were convincing. Further, the investigation would be hampered if bail was allowed. Hence, the court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, the court observed and dismissed the petition.
