In a significant judicial development, the Kerala High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to Shekhar Kumar, an Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), who is facing serious allegations of soliciting a ₹2 crore bribe. The allegations stem from a complaint filed by Aneesh Babu, a Kollam-based businessman involved in the cashew export sector. According to the complaint, the bribe demand was made in connection with an ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), with the bribe allegedly being sought to halt or soften the proceedings.
The matter came to public and legal attention after Aneesh Babu approached the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), alleging that he was being pressured to pay a substantial bribe through intermediaries who claimed to be acting on behalf of the ED officer. The businessman, who had been facing financial difficulties since the COVID-19 pandemic, had recently received summons from the ED. The timing of the bribery demand led him to suspect foul play, and he promptly notified the VACB. Following this, the vigilance authorities carried out a sting operation, during which ₹2 lakh in cash was recovered and the intermediaries were arrested. Their recorded confessions allegedly pointed directly to Shekhar Kumar as the originator of the bribe demand.
In response to these developments, Shekhar Kumar moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail. In his plea, he claimed that the entire case was a deliberate fabrication designed to tarnish his reputation and obstruct legitimate enforcement operations. He maintained that he had no direct or indirect role in the alleged bribery, and he insisted that he had cooperated fully with all investigations. His counsel argued that there was no material evidence directly linking him to any corrupt act, and the mere involvement of third parties did not establish criminal culpability.
Initially, the Kerala High Court stayed his arrest while seeking responses from the state government and the VACB. The state, in turn, submitted that it did not intend to arrest Kumar immediately, which allowed the court to continue the interim protection order. Meanwhile, the VACB informed the court that it required additional time to complete the forensic examination of digital devices seized from the intermediaries. These devices were expected to yield further evidence, including possible communications and call records that might substantiate the allegations.
The Court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, acknowledged the sensitive nature of the case, involving a senior officer of a central agency, and allowed the prosecution more time to furnish the case diary and complete the examination of digital evidence. During the proceedings, Shekhar Kumar, who had by then been transferred to the Shillong unit of the ED, reiterated his willingness to cooperate with the investigation in any capacity required.
On July 3, the High Court reserved its final judgment on the anticipatory bail plea but chose to extend interim protection, thereby continuing to bar the authorities from arresting Kumar until a conclusive ruling is issued. The Court’s approach appears to balance the need to uphold the credibility of investigative agencies with the requirement to ensure that individuals are not unjustly persecuted without substantive proof.
The case has generated considerable interest, not only because of the amount involved and the status of the accused officer, but also because it raises broader questions about transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness in cases involving central enforcement bodies. It is not uncommon for high-ranking officers of investigative agencies to face allegations, but judicial intervention often becomes necessary to scrutinize the legitimacy and timing of such charges, especially in politically sensitive environments.
The Kerala High Court’s handling of the matter demonstrates judicial caution and restraint. By granting interim protection while allowing the investigation to proceed, the Court has reinforced the principle that allegations, even serious ones, must be supported by evidence before drastic action like arrest is taken—particularly when the accused is a serving officer and has shown readiness to cooperate.
This decision is emblematic of the Court’s broader responsibility to uphold both public trust in investigative mechanisms and the individual rights of those accused. The final decision on the anticipatory bail plea is now awaited, and it will likely set an important precedent for similar cases involving central agency officials accused of misconduct or corruption. For now, the Kerala High Court has chosen a measured and constitutionally sound path by ensuring that the investigation proceeds unhindered, while also protecting the individual from undue hardship in the absence of concrete proof.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.