SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS BAIL GRANTED TO CHAITANYA BAGHEL, REJECTS ED AND STATE CHALLENGES IN ALLEGED LIQUOR SCAM CASES:

The Supreme Court has dismissed separate petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Chhattisgarh Government challenging the grant of bail to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister and senior Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel, in connection with alleged liquor scam cases. While upholding the bail granted by the Chhattisgarh High Court, the Supreme Court also highlighted the increasing trend of investigative agencies routinely challenging bail orders, observing that such challenges have contributed to the expansion of bail jurisprudence and raised important questions regarding whether an allegedly flawed bail order alone can justify the cancellation of an accused person’s liberty.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana dismissed the pleas filed by the ED and the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Chhattisgarh Police. However, the Court removed certain adverse observations made by the High Court against the State police investigation while granting bail to Baghel. The Supreme Court clarified that while the bail order would remain undisturbed, remarks made against the investigating agency were not necessary for deciding the issue of bail and were therefore expunged.

The ED and the Chhattisgarh EOW had approached the Supreme Court challenging the orders of the High Court granting bail to Baghel in separate proceedings relating to alleged money laundering and corruption offences arising out of the liquor scam investigation. The State authorities had alleged that Baghel was one of the principal accused persons and among the alleged masterminds behind the illegal liquor network. On the other hand, Baghel’s counsel argued that the High Court had passed a detailed and reasoned order after considering the materials available on record and that the investigation had already continued for nearly two years.

On January 2, the Chhattisgarh High Court had granted bail to Baghel in both cases. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma allowed his bail applications in the money laundering case registered by the ED as well as the case registered by the Chhattisgarh Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and EOW. While considering the ED matter, the High Court observed that the alleged role attributed to Baghel appeared to be comparatively lesser than that of several other accused persons who had already been granted bail, including individuals alleged to be the principal beneficiaries and key operators of the alleged liquor syndicate.

The High Court noted that several accused persons, including Anwar Dhebar, Anil Tuteja, Arvind Singh, Arunpati Tripathi, and Trilok Singh Dhillon, had already received bail from the Supreme Court. Applying the principle of parity, the High Court held that continued denial of bail to Baghel would require strong justification. It further observed that the investigation was substantially based on documentary evidence and that the relevance and evidentiary value of materials relied upon by the ED, including statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and financial and digital records, would have to be assessed during trial rather than conclusively determined at the stage of bail.

In the separate ACB/EOW proceedings, the High Court had also raised concerns regarding the conduct of the investigation, particularly with respect to the failure of the investigating officer to arrest another accused despite the existence of a permanent or open-ended warrant issued by the Special Court.

The ED had arrested Chaitanya Baghel on July 18 during its money laundering investigation, while the ACB/EOW subsequently arrested him on September 24 in connection with its corruption case while he was already in custody. The alleged liquor scam relates to the period between 2019 and 2022, when the Congress government was in power in Chhattisgarh. The ED has alleged that the scam involved a large-scale illegal liquor syndicate that caused substantial financial loss to the State exchequer. According to the agency, Baghel was involved in managing the proceeds generated from the alleged scheme and handled nearly ₹1,000 crore. The ACB/EOW has separately alleged that Baghel received approximately ₹200–250 crore as his share, while claiming that the total proceeds of crime could exceed ₹3,500 crore.

With the dismissal of the challenges by the ED and the State Government, the Supreme Court has allowed the bail order granted by the High Court to continue while leaving the merits of the criminal allegations to be determined during the course of trial.