Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Chaitanya Baghel In Alleged Liquor Scam Worth ₹2161 Crores

The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected anticipatory bail to Chaitanya Baghel (son of former CM Bhupesh Baghel), who was alleged to be one of the "top leaders" of a syndicate involved in the Chhattisgarh Excise Department scam between 2019 and 2023.

The Economic Offences Wing (EOW/ACB) had registered offences under Section 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed) and Section 12 (Punishment for abetment of offences) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, and Sections 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), and 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code against him. An anticipatory bail plea was subsequently rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma rejected anticipatory bail to the accused today.

Background

In July 2023, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) prepared a confidential report which alleged that few government officials, in alliance with country liquor distillery owners and excise officers posted in various districts and headquarters, had misused their position and accumulated disproportionate profits, which primarily involved collection of illegal commission in the sale of liquor and supply of country liquor to government liquor shops without any accounting. It was estimated that the total value of the illegal income thus earned, from a period spanning from 2019-2023, was about Rs 2161 crores.

The report alleged that a “new system” or “syndicate”, parallel to the existing government liquor shops for the supply of country liquor, was established and distillery operators were forced to produce country liquor without records, affix duplicate holograms, and sell it separately in CSMCL shops (government liquor shops) through government liquor shops, thereby generating illegal revenues of crores of rupees.

The report furnished that the accused was one of the top leaders of the syndicate involved in the alleged Chhattisgarh Excise Department scam and handled accounting of the excise scam proceeds. Evidence suggested that the accused, with the assistance of one Laxminarayan Bansal, arranged over Rs.1,000 crore from the excise scam proceeds to commit the crime.

Parallel to the EOW case, the ED also registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, in lieu of which the accused was arrested on 18.07.2025.

In the grounds of arrest suggested by the ED, it was stated that the accused was impeding the investigation by wilful non-cooperation by not disclosing the requisite facts and information, and—in order to prevent destruction of evidence and influencing of possible witnesses and to trace out the proceeds of crime and identify other entities and witnesses, his arrest was mandated.

Challenging the arrest initiated by the ED, the accused/petitioner argued that the grounds of arrest posited by ED were mere “template grounds” which did not disclose any valid grounds for arrest, and the arrest was made sheerly out of political vendetta and without any summons. Alleging that the ED was misusing the political power of the accused—- who is the son of a former CM, it argued that the arrest violated Section 19 of PMLA— which prescribes that an arrest can be when there is reason to believe that any person has been guilty of an offence, and such reasons have to be recorded in writing and the grounds of arrest must be informed to the accused. It was submitted that the reason to believe was solely based on the confession of the co-accused.

Additionally, it was urged that no summons had been issued for the past 3 years, and the allegations of non-cooperation of the petitioner were thus unfounded. Lastly, it was also argued that there was no need and necessity to arrest the petitioner as the material alleged against him was already in possession of ED.

Today, the Single Judge also reserved the order on the validity of the arrest.

Case Details:

Case Title: Chaitanya Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Advocates for the Petitioners: N Hariharan, Sr. Adv; Mayank Jain, Adv; Madhur Jain, Adv; Arpit Goel, Adv