Liquor scam: Supreme Court refuses to cancel Chaitanya Baghel's bail but deletes HC comments against EOW

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to cancel the bail granted to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in the ₹2,000-crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam case.

However, a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana expunged certain adverse remarks made by the Chhattisgarh High Court against the prosecution in its January 2026 bail order.

The apex court also raised pertinent legal questions on when bail orders can be cancelled. During the hearing, the Court asked whether bail orders should be set aside merely because they lack sufficient reasons.

"We have developed a judicial review doctrine to test liberty now. We request you as a senior member to see: can the correctness of an order be the sole test to deprive liberty of an accused?" Justice Bagchi asked Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, who represented the prosecution.

Justice Bagchi added that the Supreme Court should interfere with orders granting bail only where the continuation of an accused person's liberty is so egregious that the functioning of the administration of justice becomes impossible.

Referring to unreasoned bail orders, Justice Bagchi questioned whether the absence of reasons alone should warrant cancellation of bail.

"We have held that reasons be given in an order. But a High Court judge says, 'I grant bail.' Can we just set it aside merely because there are no reasons? Such wrong orders are there left, right and centre," he remarked.

The Bench also expressed concern over the growing tendency to challenge bail orders instead of focusing on completing criminal trials.

"If prosecutor or investigator is so focussed on all this, then the ultimate goal of securing a conviction gets compromised. This is why our jurisprudence in bringing about correctness in granting bail is delaying the further cause of trial. The number of SLPs has increased so much because of this in last year ... This is our concern about the administration of criminal justice and not on individuals at all," said Justice Bagchi.

Senior Advocate Sidhharth Dave, representing Baghel, agreed, referring to the growing number of bail cancellation proceedings.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju also acknowledged that a legally erroneous bail order may not necessarily justify the cancellation of an accused person's liberty.

"Yes, order may be bad law, but may not be fit to cancel liberty," he said.

Justice Bagchi further took critical note that courts are increasingly delivering lengthy bail orders in cases under stringent statutes such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

"There are 40-50 page bail orders in UAPA and PMLA cases. The judges' time has to be apportioned in a cautious manner," he said.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Baghel, remarked that observations of the nature made by the Bench could contribute to the development of the law.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also for Baghel, added that the reinstatement of law is sometimes very important, and could help address "topsy-turvy" situations.

Senior Advocate Jethmalani, meanwhile, submitted that the High Court had made unnecessary strictures against the investigating agency.

"He (Baghel) was not even in incarceration for long. Sometimes best judgments seem to come when powerful people are involved. That should not be the case," he submitted.

The High Court had criticised the the State’s Economic Offences Wing/ Anti-Corruption Bureau (EoW‑ACB) for seemingly selective arrests and a "pick and choose" approach in the liquor scam case.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided to dismiss the bail cancellation plea, but kept larger questions on when bail orders should be interfered with open.

"We are not inclined to cancel the bail granted. Questions of law kept open," the Bench said.

It further expunged the adverse comments made by the Chhattisgarh High Court against EOW.

"The remarks have been very uncalled for," opined the CJI, agreeing with Senior Advocate Jethmalani.

The Court proceeded to order,

"The remarks made by the High Court which tend to cast aspersion on the prosecution are completely uncalled for and are hereby expunged. All issues are kept open."

Senior Advocates N Hariharan and advocates Mayank Jain, Harshwardhan Parganiha, Madhur Jain and Arpit Goel also represented Baghel.

[Live Coverage]