Patna: The Patna High Court has sought detailed answers from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over its investigation into an alleged tender-fixing and money laundering case in Bihar, questioning the evidence and sequence of actions against petitioner Rishu Shree.
A single-judge bench headed by Justice Satyavrat Verma raised 16 questions while hearing Rishu Shree’s anticipatory bail petition and directed the ED to file an affidavit within four weeks.
The court specifically directed that the affidavit be filed by the Joint Director of the ED’s Bihar region. The matter will next be heard on October 9, 2026, at 3:30pm.
Court questions evidence behind ED action
A central issue before the court is what evidence emerged against Rishu Shree during the investigation of ECIR-4 to justify subsequent action against him, given that he was not named as an accused in the initial FIR.
Rishu Shree is a director of M/s Reliable Infra Service Private Limited and faces allegations of colluding with former IAS officer Sanjeev Hans and others to manipulate tenders of the Water Resources Department and receive commissions allegedly ranging from 2% to 3.5%.
His counsel submitted that Rishu Shree was coerced into signing statements and that the ED did not provide him with a copy of the ECIR.
The court sought details of the evidence that led to raids on Rishu Shree’s residence and company premises on July 16, 2024, despite his absence from the original list of accused.
Questions over seized mobile phone and sale deeds
The court also asked the ED what disclosures Rishu Shree made concerning a mobile phone and sale deeds seized from his residence in statements recorded between July and October 2024.
It questioned why he was not named as an accused in Special Vigilance Case No. 05/2024, which was registered after the ED shared information with the authorities on August 20, 2024.
The court further noted that his name was absent from an ED addendum dated September 20, 2024, and asked whether the agency lacked sufficient evidence against him at that stage or whether it had objected to the Vigilance Department’s decision not to name him.
ED asked about role of unidentified officials
The court also turned its attention to the alleged involvement of government officials in the tender-fixing process.
It asked the ED to identify the officials who allegedly assisted in manipulating the tenders and whether the agency had investigated their roles.
The court specifically questioned whether former IAS officer Sanjeev Hans was the only government official allegedly involved, or whether other officials had also facilitated the alleged tender-fixing.
Questions over Section 66 PMLA information
The High Court also sought clarification on information shared by the ED under Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
It asked whether the information provided to the Vigilance Department contained the names of officials other than Sanjeev Hans and, if so, whether the ED had raised any objection when those officials were not named as accused in the FIR.
Court seeks explanation for later case
The court also sought details of Rishu Shree’s statements recorded on September 21 and October 1, 2024, and asked what information contained in those statements subsequently led to the registration of SUV 05/2025 following information shared by the ED on February 25, 2025.
Among the key issues the court has asked the ED to address are:
- What evidence emerged in ECIR-4 to justify the July 16, 2024 raids?
- What did Rishu Shree disclose about the seized mobile phone and sale deeds?
- Why was he not named in Special Vigilance Case No. 05/2024?
- Why was his name absent from the ED’s September 20, 2024 addendum?
- Did the ED lack evidence against him at that stage?
- If evidence existed, why was he not named as an accused?
- What information in his September 21 and October 1 statements led to the later case?
- Which officials allegedly assisted in the tender-fixing process?
- Did the Section 66 PMLA information name officials other than Sanjeev Hans?
- If other officials were named, did the ED object when they were excluded from the FIR?
The court’s questions seek to clarify the evidentiary basis and chronology of the ED’s actions against Rishu Shree, particularly the gap between his exclusion from the initial FIR and the subsequent investigation and proceedings against him.
The High Court has not, at this stage, made a final finding on the allegations against Rishu Shree or the ED’s investigation. The agency’s response is expected to be placed before the court within four weeks.
