The Supreme Court on Monday castigated the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for filing cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) without producing adequate evidence, underlining how it had become a "pattern" for the central agency.

“We are observing that there is a pattern adopted by the Enforcement Department in a number of cases. You just make allegations without any evidence,” a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan told additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju.

The bench was dealing with the bail plea of Arvind Singh, an accused in the ₹2,000-crore liquor scam case in Chhattisgarh in 2019-22.

Justice Oka, heading the bench, told Raju: “The prosecution of these cases would not stand before the court."

The apex court's remarks give credence to Opposition claims that the Centre was misusing the PMLA to target political rivals and critics.

During earlier hearings, the bench had highlighted how several accused arrested by the ED in PMLA-related cases across the country were being held in jails while the agency continued with its investigations.

On April 28, the apex court had noted that three chargesheets were filed in the Chhattisgarh case, but the investigation was still incomplete.

"The investigation will go on at its own speed. It will go on till eternity. Three chargesheets have been filed. You are virtually penalising the person by keeping him in custody. You have made the process a punishment. This is not some case of terrorism or triple murder," the bench had remarked.

On Monday, the bench questioned Raju about the nature of the evidence collected by the ED for opposing Singh's bail plea.

“You should state whether he is the director of those companies, whether he is a majority shareholder, whether he is the managing director. Something has to be there to link him… show his involvement,” the bench said.

Raju contended that Singh was a major beneficiary of the scam and acted in collusion with another accused, Vikas Agarwal, who was absconding. Singh had allegedly received ₹40 crore in kickbacks.

Raju argued that a person could control a company even without being in charge of its affairs. He, however, offered to submit details before the bench and sought a brief adjournment.

The bench posted the matter for hearing on May 9.