Liquor scam: Chhattisgarh High Court pulls up ED, EOW for selective arrest, 'pick and choose' approach

The Chhattisgarh High Court has pulled up both the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the State’s Economic Offences Wing/ Anti-Corruption Bureau (EoW‑ACB) for a seemingly in a liquor scam case in which Chaitanya Baghel, the son of former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, is among the accused.

Justice Arvind Kumar Verma made the observation in orders granting Chaitanya Baghel bail in corruption and money laundering cases registered in the matter.

The Court found that a key accused had not been taken into custody even though his statements were used to implicate Baghel.

“The selective invocation of coercive powers against Baghel, while similarly or more seriously placed persons remain at liberty, raises a legitimate concern regarding unequal application of law,” the Court said, in its order granting Baghel bail in the ED case.

The judge found that such aspects were relevant while deciding whether to grant Baghel bail in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) cases registered in the matter.

The Court specifically flagged the non‑arrest of an allegedly absconding cash conduit, Lakshmi Narayan “Pappu” Bansal, against whom a permanent/open‑ended warrant in the EOW liquor case remained unexecuted.

His statements were repeatedly recorded and relied upon by both the ED and the EOW. However, he was not placed under arrest even after the issuance of a warrant for his arrest.

"Such selective application of the law glaringly reflects a 'pick and choose' approach, which is antithetical to the concept of fair and impartial investigation ... Such actions constitute a grave violation of law. Therefore, this Court direct(s) the Director General of Police of the State to look into this matter and issue appropriate directions to all the police officers across the State and ensure that similar violations do not occur in future," the Court said, while granting Baghel bail in the corruption case.

It noted that the alleged masterminds of the liquor scam were others and that as many as 29 excise officials implicated in the case have already been granted bail. In such circumstances, the Court opined that it would be unfair to deny Baghel bail.

"In the absence of any material demonstrating a role attributable to the applicant that is graver or distinguishable from those officials already on bail, the continued incarceration of the applicant would be wholly unjustified and contrary to the settled principles governing grant of bail," the Court said.

The Court further found that the ED had not pinpointed any justification for the arrest of Baghel in a case that largely rested on documentary evidence.

“No specific circumstance has been pointed out which necessitated the immediate arrest of the applicant at that stage, nor has it been demonstrated that custodial interrogation was indispensable once such material stood secured,” the Court said.

It also expressed astonishment that the ED’s counsel said that the agency may not be aware of the arrest warrant issued against co-accused Bansal, who remained jail-free.

“Such an admission prima facie reflects a serious lapse in the investigation and lends credence to the grievance that a selective or ‘pick and choose’ approach may have been adopted by the investigating agency,”  the Court said.

The Court added,

“Prima facie the conduct of the prosecution reveals a manifestly inconsistent and selective approach being both hot and cold in its approach and has acted in a pick and choose manner in investigation.”

The Court concluded that Baghel’s continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is alien to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, and granted him bail in the ED case as well.

The case involves allegations of a large‑scale criminal conspiracy in Chhattisgarh’s excise administration between 2019 and 2023.

The prosecution claims that a syndicate of senior bureaucrats, excise officials, politicians and private entities manipulated the State’s liquor policy and operations to cartelise liquor procurement. The alleged racket is said to have generated illicit proceeds pegged at around ₹2,161–2,500 crores.

Two cases were registered by the EOW‑ACB on January 17, 2024. The ED registered a money laundering case in the matter on April 11, 2024.

Chaitanya Baghel is alleged to be closely associated with alleged syndicate figures such as Anwar Dhebar and Trilok Singh Dhillon and accused of handling about ₹1,000 crore in cash commissions.

Baghel was arrested in the case in July 2025. He denied the allegations against him in his bail plea.

The Court declined to delve into the allegations against Baghel, observing that these were matters for trial and not a bail court. However, it noted that the investigation was largely complete and there was nothing to suggest that further custodial interrogation of Baghel was required.

It also noted that Chaitanya Baghel was not named in the initial first information report (FIR) filed in the matter, nor in five subsequent supplementary chargesheets submitted by the EOW.

Moreover, given the large number of witnesses and the voluminous evidence to be examined, the Court pointed out that it was unlikely that the criminal trial against Baghel would conclude in the near future.

The Court opined that Baghel cannot indefinitely be kept in jail until then, as it would amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

It further noted that there was no recovery of any strong incriminating material from Baghel, and that several other accused in the case were already out on bail.

"This Court finds no compelling reason to curtail the applicant’s liberty any further," Justice Verma concluded, while granting Baghel bail in the corruption case.

In a separate order, the Court granted Baghel case in the ED case as well.

“This Court is satisfied that the ends of justice can be adequately secured by imposing stringent conditions to ensure the presence of Baghel during trial and to prevent any misuse of liberty," it concluded, while imposing various conditions for the grant of bail.

Senior advocate N Hariharan with advocates Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Arpit Goel,Deepak Jain and Harshwardhan Parganiha appeared for Baghel.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, with advocates Ravi Sharma, Zoheb Hossain, Pranjal Tripathi and deputy advocate general Saurabh Kumar Pande appeared for the ED and the EoW/ACB.

[Read orders]