The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) response to a plea by former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel’s son Chaitanya Baghel challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a liquor scam [Chaitanya Baghel v. Directorate of Enforcement].
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi issued notice in the matter to ED.
"More than grounds of arrest, it’s about the interpretation of Section 190 (of BNSS, 2023). How long can you take to investigate?" Justice Bagchi observed during the hearing today.
"This court gave me time to complete the investigation in 3 months," Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, replied.
The Court proceeded to order the ED to file its response (counter affidavit) within ten days.
Senior Advocates N Hariharan and Kapil Sibal appeared for Baghel and argued that the ED was needlessly delaying the trial to prolong their client's arrest.
"Investigation doesn’t seem to end at all. We sought quashing of grounds of arrest before the High Court," Hariharan said.
"They (ED) arrest me on the ground of non-cooperation. But they never sent me a notice. They never summoned me. That’s the challenge to the arrest. They never called me, and they arrested me under Section 19 (of PMLA), which they can’t do. They have to issue me a notice. They can’t arrest me on non-cooperation without giving notice," Sibal said.
"Non cooperation is not the only ground (for arrest)," Justice Kant noted.
"These are allegations," Sibal replied.
He added,
"The issue is not that. The issue is non-cooperation. The filed a complaint, they don’t seek the permission of the Court and this way the trial never begins. They delay the trial and keep me in custody."
"But the reason is not of non-cooperation at all. You’ll have to respond," Justice Kant said, before proceeding to issue notice in the matter.
Notably, Bhagel has also filed a separate petition assailing key provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), arguing that they violate fundamental rights. His counsel today suggested that the Court could tag this plea with his plea to quash his arrest.
The ₹2,000 crore liquor scam involves allegations that politicians, excise officials, and private operators manipulated the liquor trade in Chhattisgarh between 2019 and 2022.
Baghel is accused of laundering a part of the proceeds of crime through shell companies and real estate investments.
On October 17, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a plea challenging Baghel's arrest in the case.
The High Court said that though the ED conducted further investigation without mandatory permission of the jurisdictional court, the same was only a procedural irregularity which did not render its investigation illegal.
Baghel has challenged this ruling, arguing that procedural irregularity on the ED's part has rendered its entire process void and his arrest illegal.
In a separate petition, Baghel has questioned the constitutional validity of Sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA, arguing that they infringe Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution.
He has contended that these provisions empower the ED to compel individuals to make self-incriminating statements without the procedural protections available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The plea added that statements recorded under Section 50, PMLA are often obtained under coercion and used against accused persons, which violates the protection against self-incrimination.