The Patna High Court has questioned the Enforcement Directorate and Bihar’s Special Vigilance Unit over their “failure” to act against several senior officials, allegedly linked to the multi-crore tender scam, observing that the authorities concerned appeared to be trying to “save some and implicate few”.
A single-judge bench of Justice Satyavrat Verma, in an order passed on October 15, said the petitioner, who is in custody, appeared to be a “pawn” rather than the kingpin of the alleged money laundering operation, with the principal actors remaining “behind the curtains”.
The bench passed the order while hearing the case in which Rishu Shree, a contractor, was the petitioner and ED Patna Zone the respondent.
The Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) in June this year filed a charge sheet against seven people, including an IAS officer, as part of its investigation into the multi-crore tender scam. The ED investigated the case following allegations of corruption in government tenders.
During the investigation, the names of several engineers and officials surfaced. Based on inputs and evidence from the ED investigation, the SVU initiated a probe by registering separate FIRs.
Rishu Shree, whose firms work as contractors and subcontractors for various Bihar government departments, including Water Resources, Health, Public Health Engineering, Urban Development, Education, Building Construction and Rural Works, was alleged to have links with government officials to secure tenders for illicit personal gains, officials said.
The SVU arrested contractor Rishu Shree in connection with an alleged tender manipulation and money laundering case on May 27 this year. He is in judicial custody. An ED report submitted earlier had alleged that Rishu funded foreign trips and other expenses of two IAS officers and their family members in return for securing government contracts, the officials said.
The court noted that the ED had shared information under Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), naming six senior government officials, but the state’s Special Vigilance Unit registered a case against only three of them.
It also questioned why the ED had not summoned several other officials despite having information about their alleged involvement since February 2025.
“The court gets an impression that the authorities are trying to save some and implicate few when the law is same for everyone,” the order stated.
The court observed that the ED’s response to its queries was “evasive” and raised doubts over the progress of the investigation, questioning “whether the alleged offence could have been committed by the petitioner alone in connivance with private players”.
The court directed the petitioner to implead the SVU, through its additional director general, as a respondent and asked the agency to file a counter-affidavit explaining why the officials named by the ED were not arrayed as accused and what emerged during the investigation regarding their alleged roles.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 27 at 3 pm.