The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered more than just bail in the high-profile liquor scam—it has issued a sharp warning to investigators over what it described as a selective and uneven use of arrest powers.
While granting bail to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, the Court openly questioned the approach adopted by both the Enforcement Directorate and the State’s Economic Offences Wing–Anti-Corruption Bureau. The case against Baghel arises from corruption and money laundering proceedings linked to the alleged liquor syndicate operating in the State.
Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, who passed the orders, noted a troubling inconsistency: a key figure whose statements were repeatedly relied upon to implicate Baghel was never taken into custody, despite an arrest warrant remaining unexecuted. That individual, identified as Lakshmi Narayan “Pappu” Bansal, was described as an alleged cash conduit and was said to be absconding, yet continued to feature prominently in the prosecution’s narrative—without ever seeing the inside of a jail cell.
The Court observed that invoking coercive powers against one accused while leaving others, including those allegedly more deeply involved, untouched strikes at the heart of fair investigation. Such a “pick and choose” method, the judge said, undermines equality before law and cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential, especially at the stage of deciding bail.
Taking the criticism further, the Court directed the State’s police leadership to examine the issue and ensure that similar lapses do not recur. The message was unambiguous: selective enforcement is not a procedural flaw—it is a violation of law.
In assessing Baghel’s plea, the Court also took into account that several excise officials implicated in the same case had already been granted bail, and that the alleged architects of the scam were said to be others. There was no material, the judge noted, to suggest that Baghel’s role was graver or distinguishable enough to justify prolonged incarceration.
The Court was equally unconvinced by the ED’s justification for arrest, pointing out that the case leaned heavily on documents already in the agency’s possession. No pressing need for custodial interrogation was demonstrated. The judge expressed surprise when it was suggested that the agency may not have been aware of the outstanding warrant against Bansal—an admission the Court said only strengthened allegations of selective action.
With the investigation largely complete, no significant recoveries attributed to Baghel, and a trial unlikely to conclude anytime soon given the volume of evidence and witnesses, the Court held that continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment. Such an outcome, it said, would run contrary to settled principles of criminal law and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.
Baghel was granted bail in both the corruption case and the money laundering proceedings, subject to stringent conditions aimed at ensuring his presence during trial and preventing any misuse of liberty.
The case itself stems from allegations of a large-scale conspiracy within Chhattisgarh’s excise administration between 2019 and 2023. Investigators claim that a network of officials, political figures and private players manipulated liquor policy and procurement, generating illicit proceeds estimated to run into thousands of crores. Baghel has denied all accusations against him, and the Court made it clear that the merits of those allegations will be tested at trial—not at the bail stage.
