Chhattisgarh liquor scam case: Supreme Court seeks ED response on Chaitanya Baghel’s challenge to arrest

The Supreme Court on Friday, October 31, 2025, asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to respond to Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, who had challenged the legality of his arrest in a liquor scam case on the grounds that he was not cooperating with the investigation.

Notifying the ED, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that the investigating agencies had stalled the trial process from the very beginning by continuing the investigation “forever” and as a result, the accused continued to languish in jail as a sub-trial.

“Besides the grounds for arrest, the issue here is the interpretation of Chapter 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023… How far can you proceed with your ‘further investigation’?” Justice Bagchi asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who arrived at the ED.

Mr. Raju said the agency has a statutory period of three months and this period has been approved by the Supreme Court itself. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and N. Hariharan, speaking on Mr. Baghel’s behalf, said their client was arrested for not cooperating in the fraud investigation.

“But I was never summoned by the ED in the first instance under Section 50 of the PMLA. They did not send me a notice to appear before them… Then how can they say that I obstructed the investigation by not disclosing the facts… How can they arrest me? Arrests under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) can be effected only when they are prima facie convinced that I have committed the offence… So how can they come to such a conclusion without calling or summoning me?” Mr. Sibal asked the court.

Mr Sibal said the ED’s modus operandi was to first file a complaint, then arrest, then ensure the trial never started by repeating the prayer for further investigation. “The investigation doesn’t look like it’s going to end,” Mr. Hariharan said.

The ₹2,000-crore liquor scam involves allegations that politicians, tax officials and private operators manipulated the liquor trade in Chhattisgarh between 2019 and 2022. Mr. Baghel, who was arrested in July, is accused of laundering some of the proceeds of crime through front companies and real estate investments.

In a separate petition, Mr. Baghel challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the PMLA, which violated the fundamental rights of the accused against self-incrimination and maintaining silence while being questioned by an investigating agency.

“Sections 50 and 63 of the PMLA are unconstitutional and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The framework under Articles 50(2) and 50(3) of the Act violates the fundamental rights against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The provisions allow the ED to summon any person, compel responses and produce documents under threat of punishment,” he said.

However, the Supreme Court refused to entertain separate petitions filed by Mr. Baghel and his son Chaitanya Baghel, who were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under PMLA in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case on July 18, and objected to the “piecemeal investigations” conducted by the ED. They argued that the investigation had become a source of harassment.

The Baghels, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and AM Singhvi and advocate Vipin Nair, said the prosecution in the liquor case had systematically misused Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 193(9) of the BNSS.

“By allowing ‘further investigation’ without adequate procedural safeguards, these provisions give unlimited discretion to investigative bodies and enable arbitrary and protracted investigations that violate the fundamental rights to equality, personal liberty and fair trial under Articles 14, 20 and 21,” the petitions read.

Similarly, he submitted that Section 44 of the PMLA, which deals only with procedural aspects of recognition and trial of offenses before the Special Court, cannot be used to confer substantive powers on the ED to “further investigation”.