SC agrees to hear ED’s plea challenging anticipatory bail in illegal mining case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear the Enforcement Directorate’s plea challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to the director of a private firm in a money laundering case linked to alleged illegal coal excavation and pilferage.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi issued notice to Anup Majee, who was a director of a firm engaged in the business of purchase and sale of coal, seeking his response on the ED’s plea.

The ED has challenged the Delhi High Court’s June last year order granting him anticipatory bail in the money laundering case registered in 2020.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail, claiming that Majee was the “kingpin” of the Rs 2,700 crore “fraud” in which national resource was plundered.

Raju argued that Majee was absconding for a considerable time of period.

“He (Majee) was there in the custody of the CBI. Why you (ED) did not take him into custody,” the bench asked. The law officer, while arguing that national resource was plundered in the case, referred to the evidence against him.

“Has he cooperated in the investigation?” the bench asked. Raju said after Majee got protection from the court, there was some cooperation in the probe.

Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for Majee, said he has cooperated in the investigation and 13 times he has gone before the probe agency.

The bench issued notice on the ED’s plea and posted the matter for hearing in September. The High Court had passed the order on an application filed by Majee seeking anticipatory bail in the money laundering case.

Before the High Court, the ED had alleged that coal worth Rs 2,742.32 crore (inclusive of taxes/royalty) was misappropriated from the Eastern Coalfield Limited (ECL) leasehold area by way of illegal coal excavation and pilferage.

Majee’s counsel had argued in the High Court that there was absolutely no requirement for custodial interrogation as he had joined the investigation on multiple occasions and fully cooperated with the probe agency.