Chhattisgarh liquor scam case: Supreme Court rejects pleas of ED, State against grant of bail to Chaitanya Baghel

Published 22 July 2026 · politics

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 22, 2026), dismissed two separate pleas of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Chhattisgarh government challenging the bail granted

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 22, 2026), dismissed two separate pleas of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Chhattisgarh government challenging the bail granted to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chief Minister and senior Congress leader Bhupesh Baghel, in alleged liquor scam cases. While dismissing the pleas of probe agencies against grant of bail to Mr. Chaitanya Baghel, the Supreme Court flagged the growing practice of routinely challenging bail orders and said it has led to a “significant expansion of bail jurisprudence, prompting the court to examine whether a legally flawed bail order, by itself, is sufficient to justify cancellation of an accused's liberty”. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, however, expunged the adverse remarks made by the Chhattisgarh High Court against the Economic Offence wing (EOW) of the State police probe while granting bail to Mr. Chaitanya Baghel. The ED and the EOW wing of the police have filed separate pleas challenging the bail granted by the High Court in the case and a related money laundering matter.

While the State government alleged that Mr. Chaitanya Baghel was one of the prime accused and masterminds in the sensational case, his counsel had argued that the High Court delivered a well-considered judgment in the case in which the probe was ongoing for the last two years. On January 2, the High Court granted bail to Mr. Chaitanya Baghel in two cases linked to the alleged liquor scam. The single Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma allowed Mr. Chaitanya Baghel's bail pleas in a case lodged by the ED and another by the Chhattisgarh Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB)/EOW. In its order on the bail application in the ED's case, the High Court noted that the applicant's alleged role was ‘significantly lesser’ than that of several senior accused who have already been granted bail. It said the alleged kingpins and principal beneficiaries — Anwar Dhebar, Anil Tuteja, Arvind Singh, Arunpati Tripathi and Trilok Singh Dhillon — have already been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court, and denying bail to the applicant would violate the well-established principle of parity.

The High Court observed that the investigation was largely documentary in nature and that Mr. Chaitanya Baghel had remained in custody for a considerable period. It said the evidentiary value of the material collected by the ED, including statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and financial and digital records, would be tested during trial and not conclusively assessed at the bail stage. In a separate order granting him bail in the ACB/EOW case, the HC said it was a ‘grave violation of law’ that the investigating officer failed to arrest Lakshmi Narayan Bansal [an accused in the case] despite a permanent/open-ended warrant issued by the special court. The ED arrested Mr. Chaitanya Baghel on July 18 last year in its money laundering probe in the alleged scam, while the ACB/EOW placed him under arrest while he was in jail on September 24 in its case linked to the corruption probe. The liquor ‘scam’ in the State, according to the ED, was orchestrated between 2019 and 2022 when Chhattisgarh was governed by the Bhupesh Baghel-led Congress dispensation.