The Chhattisgarh High Court recently granted bail to suspended bureaucrat Saumya Chaurasia in the money laundering case linked to the liquor scam in the State. [Saumya Chaurasia vs Directorate of Enforcement].
Chaurasia had served as Deputy Secretary to former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel.
Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed that Chaurasia had made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. It noted that her alleged role was peripheral compared to the principal conspirators who have already been granted bail.
“In the instant case, the Applicant—a lady, bears a peripheral role dwarfed by principal conspirators conspicuously enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court. Notably, the respondent/ED has filed prosecution complaints against over 40 accused, including deeply complicit excise officials, sans arrest. Manifest parity thus enures in her favour,” the Court said in its order passed on February 28.
The single-judge added that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were satisfied, as there were no reasonable grounds to believe Chaurasia was guilty of money laundering and there was no material indicating the likelihood of committing similar offence while on bail.
“While the allegations pertain to economic offences of a serious nature, it is equally well settled that gravity of accusation alone cannot be the sole ground to deny bail, particularly when the investigation is substantially complete and the trial is likely to take considerable time,” the Court added.
The case relates to an alleged large-scale liquor procurement and distribution scam in Chhattisgarh between 2019 and 2023, in which a syndicate of bureaucrats, political functionaries and private individuals allegedly manipulated the excise policy to generate illegal commissions and proceeds of crime worth over ₹2,800 crore.
Notably, Chaurasia was arrested on December 16, 2025, after a prolonged investigation and the filing of multiple prosecution complaints.
According to the prosecution, digital evidence and electronic communications recovered from co-accused Anil Tuteja allegedly show that Chaurasia monitored the syndicate’s financial accounts and facilitated the appointment of key officers in the Excise Department.
The case against her was first registered by the State Economic Offences Wing (EOW) on January 17, 2024 under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using a forged document as genuine) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, along with Sections 7 (public servant being bribed) and 12 (abetment of offences) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC), 1988.
Based on this FIR, the ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on April 11, 2024 and initiated a money laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Appearing for Chaurasia, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave argued that she was neither named in the predicate FIR nor in the ECIR.
He argued that she was implicated only later during the investigation without any independent incriminating material.
He further submitted that no recovery has been made from her and no proceeds of crime have been traced to her.
ED counsel Zoheb Hossain argued that the bail plea was misconceived and premature. He added that Chaurasia played a central role in handling and layering the proceeds of crime in the liquor scam.
After considering the case, the High Court said that record showed a troubling pattern, pointing out that the applicant had been arrested six times in different cases by agencies like the ED and CBI, resulting in significant time spent in custody.
“Notably, the Supreme Court has repeatedly granted bail, confirmed vide order dated 28.01.2026 upholding prior interim reliefs. This sequence of successive apprehensions prima facie resiling from earlier releases bespeaks continued incarceration, warranting scrutiny. The issue engaged the Apex Court's attention, culminating in its directive dated 09.02.2026 mandating bail consideration. Such circumstances, indicative of potential overreach, cannot be discountenanced in equity,” the Court said.
Taking note of this, the High Court said that the ends of justice would be served by granting bail, subject to strict conditions.
However, it clarified that if Chaurasia fails to cooperate with the trial proceedings or violates any bail condition, the ED would be free to seek cancellation of her bail in accordance with the law.
Besides Senior Advocate Dave, advocates Harshwardhan Parganiha, Mayank Jain, Anshul Rai, Madhur Jain, Harshit Sharma, Arpit Goel and Alekhya Shastry also represented Chaurasia.
Advocate Zoheb Hossain with Special Public Prosecutor Saurabh Kumar Pande appeared for the Enforcement Directorate.
[Read Order]