Chhattisgarh High Court stays trial court proceedings against Bhupesh Baghel in morphed CD case

The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday stayed further proceedings before a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court against former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel in the alleged BJP MLA Rajesh Munat morphed CD case.

Justice Radhakishan Agrawal passed the interim order while hearing Baghel's petition challenging the January 24, 2026 order of the Special Judge (CBI), Raipur, which had set aside a previous discharge and directed that charges be framed against him.

A detailed order is awaited.

Baghel argued that the trial court had already proceeded to frame charges pursuant to the revisional court's order. He contended that if the trial were allowed to continue, the present petition would be rendered infructuous.

The Court was urged that further proceedings before the trial court be stayed pending disposal of the petition.

The case arises from allegations that a morphed obscene video purportedly depicting then Chhattisgarh minister Rajesh Munat was created and circulated in 2017 to damage his reputation.

After the investigation was transferred to the CBI, the agency charge-sheeted Baghel and others for criminal conspiracy, forgery for the purpose of harming reputation, using a forged electronic record as genuine and publishing or transmitting sexually explicit electronic material.

In March 2025, a special judicial magistrate discharged Baghel, holding that there was no prima facie material linking him to the alleged conspiracy or circulation of the video. However, the Special Judge (CBI) set aside that discharge in January 2026 and directed that charges be framed against him. This led to the present proceedings before the High Court.

In his plea before the High Court, Baghel argued that the CBI court exceeded its powers in overturning his discharge. According to him, instead of deciding only whether the trial court was right to discharge him, the court effectively changed the nature of the charges against him, something only a trial court can do at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

He further argued that a higher court can interfere with a discharge order only in exceptional cases, such as where the order is clearly illegal or unsupported by evidence.

On merits, Baghel argued that the prosecution material failed to disclose the "grave suspicion" necessary for framing charges. He submitted that merely staying in a hotel with co-accused persons does not establish participation in a criminal conspiracy and that there was no material showing his direct or indirect involvement in the alleged offences of forgery.

Baghel also said that witness statements only showed he had organised a press conference protesting the arrest of co-accused Vinod Verma. The plea contended that there was no evidence that he had personally distributed the allegedly objectionable CDs at this conference.

Taking note of the contentions, the High Court had stayed further proceedings before the trial court.

Advocates Mayank Jain, Harshwardhan Parganiha, Madhur Jain, Arpit Goel, Harshit Sharma and Manubha Shankar appeared for Baghel.