Supreme Court to Hear ED Plea Challenging Anticipatory Bail Granted to Anup Majee

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

PTI, May 12, 2026, New Delhi : 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 S V 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 a national resource was allegedly plundered.

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

“He (Majee) was there in the custody of the CBI. Why did you (ED) not take him into custody,” the Bench asked.

The law officer, while arguing that a 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 had appeared before the probe agency 13 times.

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 and royalty) was misappropriated from the Eastern Coalfields 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.