Chattisgarh NAN Scam | 'Judge Met The CM Two Days Before Granting Bail' : ED Tells Supreme Court

Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Ajay Rastogi, on Tuesday, heard the Enforcement Directorate's petition seeking transfer of investigation in the Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam case pertaining to corruption in the Public Distribution System (PDS) in Chattisgarh. In today's proceedings, the ED submitted that the judge who had granted bail to the accused persons in the case had met the Chief Minister of the State, two days before the bail order was passed and as such free and fair trial had not been carried out in the case. 

At the outset, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta submitted that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted to investigate the matter was in touch with the prime accused. He submitted that the SIT's draft report was in fact vetted out by the prime accused before being submitted. He said–

"The collusion between accused and authorities has diluted the case of the prosecution. Prime accused was involved in intimidating the officers involved in proceedings. The draft report by SIT was vetted by the prime accused first. Son of the prime accused was in touch with the Chief of Economic Offences Wing and two members of the SIT. The accused has received concessions from the present State government. The SIT has made at least 7 unsuccessful attempts to stall the proceedings."

In an earlier hearing, SG Mehta had submitted that senior functionaries of the government of Chattisgarh were actively involved in weakening the case of petitioners and that he could place material on record proving the same in a sealed cover as disclosing the said material in public domain would shake the faith of people in the system. The said material was provided to the bench in sealed covers in today's hearing. SG Mehta sought to establish that due to the level of collusion between the accused and highly placed persons, it was impossible for free and fair investigation to take place. He submitted that WhatsApp conversations between the accused and the co-accused showed that the Chief Minister of the State was contacted. While reading from the documents, SG Mehta said–

"Please see this – "I was wondering if HCM could speak with him". HCM means Hon'ble Chief Minister. "He has met HCM". That happens on 11th October 2019 and the bail was granted thereafter. The accused is telling the co-accused this. "Necessary instructions to be given to AG". Then they're seen congratulating each other."

Justice Ajay Rastogi expressed his doubt in concluding that the messages necessarily established collusion between accused and constitutional functionaries. However, SG Mehta stressed–

"The learned judge met the CM two days before the bail! If this isn't shocking, I don't know what is! Not everything can be recorded. There cannot be an agreement signed by the CM and the learned judge. The draft reply is being shared with the accused before it is being filed. The prosecutor told the accused "You tell me what is to be done" and we're supposed to depend on the prosecutor at the local level? The Chief of the Prosecuting Wing is talking to the main accused. The Chief is in collusion, in my opinion that's enough to show. Can the chief of the investigative agency ask the prime accused that these are the people who can be persuaded for 164 statement?"

CJI Lalit stated that if the court was to rely on sealed cover documents, the documents were to be provided to the State as well, in the interest of fairness. He said that since the documents were pertaining to actions of police officers whose authority fell under the State government, the documents could be given to the State Government of Chattisgarh in strictest confidence. However, SG Mehta insisted that the same may be hazardous as the State Government had been sharing everything with the accused. To this, Justice Bhat stated–

"What you're asking us to do will lead us to a dangerous path. We cannot go back to the middle age. You're asking us to take over- that can be done in extraordinary circumstances but to do it without even telling the state why, that is dangerous."

The bench seemed inclined to provide one copy of the documents in sealed cover to the State of Chattisgarh so that the State could cross check the veracity of the same. However, SG Mehta insisted that in such a case, he should also be provided with a copy of the record of the trial court. Senior Advocate Sibal, appearing for the State, objected to the same.

The matter will be continued tomorrow at 3.30 pm.

CASE TITLE: ED v. Anil Tuteja And Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 6323-24/2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order