Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Filed By Ex-Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel's Son Challenging ED Arrest In Liquor Scam Case

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a petition filed by ex-Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel's son Chaitanya Baghel challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and N Hariharan (for Baghel). Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for ED.

A request for release from custody was sought to be made on Baghel's behalf, but Justice Kant categorically declined.

At the outset of the hearing, Hariharan and Sibal contended that ED arrested Baghel on the ground of non-cooperation with investigation without even issuing notice.

"They arrest me on the ground of non-cooperation, but they never sent me a notice. They did not summon me. They never called me, and they arrested me under Section 19, which they can't do. They have to issue me a notice. They cannot arrest me on the ground of non-cooperation without giving notice," said Sibal.

In response, Justice Kant noted that non-cooperation was not the only ground of arrest. "These are allegations", replied Sibal. The senior counsel further said, "they filed a complaint, but don't seek permission of the Court. This way the trial never begins...they delay the trial and keep me in custody".

Countering the submissions, the ASG said that the Court gave ED 3 months' time to complete the investigation. Besides, statements of witnesses have been recorded and "there is sufficient evidence" against Baghel. The ASG also stated that non-cooperation was not the only ground of arrest. On this, Justice Bagchi remarked,

"More than grounds of arrest, it is about the interpretation of Section 190...[about] how long you can take to investigate". Ultimately, the bench re-listed the matter calling for ED's response.

A writ petition filed by Baghel challenging inter-alia Sections 44, 50 and 63 of the PMLA was also listed before the Court. The same has been listed next week with a batch of matters where the Court is considering challenge to PMLA provisions.

Earlier as well, Baghel approached the Supreme Court questioning the necessity of his arrest and seeking interim bail in the ED case registered in relation to the Chhattisgarh Liquor 'scam'. He further prayed for a relief of no-coercive action in an EoW case and challenged Sections 50 and 63 of PMLA. The Court disposed of this matter, asking him to approach the High Court. At the same time, he was given liberty to file a separate writ petition challenging Sections 50 and 63 of PMLA.

On the basis of a host of complaints and reports from the Income Tax Department, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and Economic Offences Wing (EOW), relating to illicit financial transactions in the alleged Liquor Scam, Baghel was apprehended by ED on 18.07.2025.

After the earlier Supreme Court hearing, he moved the High Court, arguing inter-alia that his arrest was illegal as neither was there any necessity for such custodial action, nor was he issued summons at any stage for recording of statements, and he consequently remained unaware of any proceedings initiated against him.

On October 17, the High Court rejected Baghel's plea. He had pointed out a slew of procedural lapses and irregularities in his arrest, such as non-issuance of summons, baseless claims of non-cooperation, template grounds of arrest, and unwarranted coercive action. However, the Court refused to interfere, holding that non-issuance of notice under Section 50 PMLA is a procedural lapse which does not amount to illegality.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, N Hariharan, S Nagamuthu and Siddharth Dave, Advocates Mayank Jain, Harshwardhan Parghaniha, Madhur Jain and Arpit Goel (for Baghel); ASG SV Raju (for ED)

Case Title: CHAITANYA BHAGHEL Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SLP(Crl) No. 17232/2025 (and connected case)