Can’t be mute spectator: Jharkhand High Court stays probe against ED officials, deploys force to guard Ranchi office

The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 9.

The Jharkhand High Court made it clear that if any untoward incident occurred in the ED office, the SSP, Ranchi will be held liable. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

Till the next date, there shall be stay of further proceeding and investigation by the police.

The Home Secretary, Government of India is directed to depute either CISF or BSF or any other para military force, whichever is suitable at the office of the Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi.

The SSP, Ranchi is also directed to look into the security of the office of the Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi.

It is made clear that if any untoward incident occurred in the said office, the SSP, Ranchi will be held liable for that.

The CCTV footage installed at the premises of the Directorate of Enforcement shall be preserved.
Section 67 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act protects the Government officials if in good faith, they are acting under the said Act.

Under Section 67 of the PMLA, civil courts are prohibited from modifying or setting aside any orders or proceedings issued under the Act.

Additionally, the section grants legal immunity to the officials for actions taken in good faith.

Background

The matter originates from a case registered by airport police station on January 13 naming two ED officials, an assistant director and an assistant enforcement officer posted at the Ranchi Zonal Office.

The case was registered under Sections 109(2) (punishment for abetment when the offence is committed), 117(2) (abetment of an offence by the public or by a group), 115(2) (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 127(2) (wrongful confinement for an extended period), 351(2) (criminal intimidation involving threat of death or grievous hurt), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 238 (causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender) and 3(5) (liability for acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

According to the petitioners, ED officials, the informant, Santosh Kumar, is the principal accused in an alleged misappropriation of approximately Rs 23 crore from the drinking water and sanitation department of the state government, which is under investigation by the ED.

The petitioners said although Santosh Kumar was not summoned, he appeared at the ED office on January 12 and during questioning allegedly struck a glass water jug against his own head, causing a minor injury.

Following this, the case was registered against the ED officers.
They claimed that a false and malicious FIR was subsequently lodged against ED officials.

Arguments

Advocates Amit Kumar Das, Shivam U Sahay Saurav Kumar, Varun Girdhar and Sankalp Goswami, appearing for argued that the Ranchi office of the ED is handling several high-profile and sensitive investigations involving influential political figures and senior bureaucrats.

The counsel said that the FIR and subsequent police action were part of a “pre-planned tactic to disrupt the investigation” of these matters.

It was argued that on January 15 at around 6am, following a late-night communication, police reached the ED office and sought to treat it as a crime scene, paralysing the functioning of the agency.

The petitioners urged the court to intervene to protect ED officials and the office premises, emphasising that Section 67 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA) grants protection to government officials acting in good faith under the Act.

They also sought transfer of the investigation to an independent agency such as the CBI.