In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to former IAS officer Anil Tuteja on Tuesday, in connection with the alleged Rs 2,000 crore liquor scam that shook Chhattisgarh. Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan presided over the hearing, noting the complexity of the case with 20 accused and over 30 witnesses yet to be examined.
Anil Tuteja was taken into custody on April 21, 2024, following allegations by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the stringent Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The arrest stemmed from a comprehensive investigation that highlighted a vast network of corruption involving high-level state government officials and private entities, designed to manipulate the liquor distribution channels in the state between 2019 and 2022.
The decision to grant bail was influenced by a prior ruling from the Chhattisgarh High Court, which invalidated the order of cognizance by a special court due to the lack of mandatory sanction under section 197 of CrPC. This section is crucial as it protects public servants from prosecution for actions conducted in their official capacity without prior government sanction.
“The lack of an existing order taking cognizance, coupled with the fact that Tuteja has already spent a year in jail, makes a compelling case for bail,” stated the Supreme Court bench. They further justified the bail citing the “Senthil Balaji” precedent and noting that a co-accused had been granted bail under similar circumstances earlier in February 2025.
Despite vehement opposition from the ED, which depicted Tuteja as a key figure in a “well-oiled machinery” of corruption, the court has mandated strict bail conditions. Tuteja is required to surrender his passport and ensure full cooperation with the court proceedings.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Tuteja, reinforced the argument that the initial cognizance was flawed, which significantly weakened the prosecution’s case. Meanwhile, the ED continues to assert the depth of the liquor scam, alleging that the syndicate involved facilitated off-the-books sales and allowed distillers to form a cartel, severely impacting the state’s revenue and governance integrity.
