TN Court Dismisses Second Bail Petition Of Arrested ED Officer Ankit Tiwari

The Special Judge, J Mohana ML noted that Anki was not eligible for statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC as the Supreme Court had stayed the investigation in the case on the 55^th day because of which the investigating authorities could not complete the investigation and file the chargesheet.

“Considering the arguments on both side, the statutory bail u/s.167(2) Cr.P.C. would be applicable only if the sixty days period from the date of arrest had gone without any reasonable cause After the 55th day the respondent is restraint by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India from going for further investigation. Hence, the further proceedings is stalled. Hence, the reason and argument on the side of respondent Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dindigul seemed to this court is valid. Hence, this petition by the petitioner is dismissed,” the court ordered.

Ankit was arrested in December 2023 by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The DVAC had alleged that Ankit had demanded a sum of 51 Lakh rupees from one Dr. Suresh Babu as a bribe to close the pending case against him.

Out of this, Rs. 20 Lakh was allegedly paid on November 1, 2023, and it was alleged that Tiwari had continued to demand the balance amount from the de-facto complainant Babu, which led to him filing the complaint and Tiwari's subsequent arrest. Following Tiwari's arrest, the DVAC had also conducted searches in the offices of the Enforcement Directorate.

After the first bail application was rejected, Ankit also approached the High Court seeking bail. The High Court, however, dismissed his petition noting that granting bail would hamper the investigation.

The present bail plea was filed under Section 167(2) CrPC. It was submitted that Ankit was in custody for more than 61 days and no charge sheet has been filed during this prescribed time. He added that no prejudice would be caused to the investigating agency of the bail is allowed and assured the court that he would not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that since the investigation was stayed by the Supreme Court on January 25^th, the statutory period fixed under Section 167(2) of CrPC will not apply to the present case and Ankit could not claim bail. It was also submitted that Ankit's continued judicial custody was necessary for proper investigation and to prevent Ankit from causing disappearance/tampering of evidence and further to prevent him from inducing/threatening any person acquainted with the case.

Finding merit in the argument, the court noted that the reasons cited by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption were valid and thus dismissed the bail plea.

Advocate A Selvam appeared for Ankit Tiwari and R Anuradha, Special Public Prosecutor appeared for the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.