Kerala High Court Directs Vigilance to Seek Custody in ED Bribery Investigation
The Kerala High Court has issued significant directives in a high-profile bribery case involving an Enforcement Directorate official, instructing the state vigilance department to approach the special court for limited custody of the complainant for investigation purposes.
Court Directives and Timeline
Justice A Badharudeen, while considering a petition filed by Kollam-based cashew trader Aneesh Babu, has directed the vigilance team to file an application before the special court within ten days. The bench further instructed the special court to consider this application in accordance with established legal procedures. The petition itself has been adjourned to February 10 for further proceedings.
The court's order specifically mandates the vigilance department to seek limited custody of Babu from the special court handling Prevention of Money Laundering Act cases. This directive comes amid ongoing investigations into alleged bribery demands made on behalf of an ED official.
Background of the Case
Aneesh Babu, currently in judicial custody in a PMLA case, had filed a complaint with the vigilance department alleging that two middlemen contacted him on behalf of ED Assistant Director Sekhar Kumar. According to his complaint, these individuals demanded Rs 2 crore to stop the ED probe against him in a money laundering case.
Based on this complaint, the vigilance department registered a case against Sekhar Kumar and others. However, during the pendency of his petition seeking transfer of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Babu was arrested on January 14 in the PMLA case. He stands accused of cheating local cashew traders by collecting advance payments for imported cashew nuts and failing to deliver the goods.
Petitioner's Allegations and Vigilance Response
In his petition before the High Court, Aneesh Babu made several serious allegations:
- No proper investigation had been conducted by the vigilance department on his complaint thus far
- The accused individuals are highly influential persons
- A CBI probe is necessary to ensure a fair and impartial investigation
The vigilance department presented a counter-argument before the court, stating that despite filing the complaint against the ED official, the petitioner has not been cooperating with the investigation. Specifically, they noted that while Babu had handed over his mobile phone for examination of call records related to the bribery allegations, he had failed to provide the necessary password for access.
Legal Implications and Next Steps
The High Court's directive represents a significant development in this complex legal case that intersects corruption allegations with money laundering proceedings. By ordering the vigilance department to seek limited custody through proper legal channels, the court has established a framework for advancing the bribery investigation while respecting the judicial processes of the parallel PMLA case.
The case highlights the intricate relationship between different investigative agencies and the judicial oversight required when multiple legal proceedings involve the same individual. The February 10 hearing will likely address the petitioner's request for case transfer to the CBI, while the vigilance department pursues the limited custody order as directed by the court.
