Though ED’s August 1 affidavit does not name the judge in question, annexures containing WhatsApp chat details show he was Justice Arvind Kumar Chandel, with ED stating he was approached through his brother and former state chief secretary Ajay Singh.Chandel was transferred to Patna HC this year.
Chandel was transferred to Patna HC this year.
ED has claimed the two bureaucrats in the then Baghel-led Congress govt were tampering with evidence to dilute the case against them.
Enough proof to start probe into bid to derail trial: ED
The accused through the then advocate general were in touch with the judge of Chhattisgarh HC who had granted anticipatory bail to Shukla on October 16, 2019. Tuteja was in touch with the judge through (then) AG Satish Chandra Verma as is evident from WhatsApp messages of July 31 and Aug 11 of 2019, Enforcement Directorate (ED) said.
“WhatsApp messages exchange has revealed that biodata of the daughter and son-in-law of the judge were sent to Tuteja for favourable action by then AG who has been liasoning between the judge and both the prime accused Tuteja and Shukla,” it added.
“Tuteja and Shukla were (also) in touch with the judge’s brother (Ajay Singh) regarding the matter of anticipatory bail of accused Shukla, which was pending before the bench of the ju-dge. As soon as both accused were granted bail on Oct 16, 2019, the judge’s brother was removed from the post of chief secretary and appointed as vice-chairman, Planning Commission, on Nov 1, 2019,” ED said.
“The accused persons were involved in sharing and modification of the draft statement of co-accused Shiv Shankar Bhatt to dilute the role of other prime accused in the scheduled offence,” it added.
“Analysis of WhatsApp chat of October 4 to Oct 16 of 2019 between Tuteja, Shukla and then advocate general reveal the role of the brother of the judge and the then ADG Economic Offences Wing-Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur, who was in charge of defending the scheduled offence, in diluting the case against both the accused in order to acquit both the accused from the charges of corruption,” the ED said.
The agency claimed that several paragraphs from the state EOW’s report on the scam were removed at the behest of Tuteja and Shukla to protect the interest of the prime accused and later the same amended report was placed before the HC.
ED said, “There is enough evidence to initiate investigation by an independent agency with regards to the involvement and a concerted effort to derail the trial and tamper with the evidence by the accused persons in connivance with highly placed constitutional state officials.”