The Supreme Court has issued a notice regarding the plea challenging the arrest of Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in connection with the ₹2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam. The plea raises questions about the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) investigation procedures, specifically concerning the lack of mandatory magistrate sanction required under criminal procedure law.
The apex court has instructed the ED to submit its response within ten days and has set the next hearing for two weeks from now. The bench, comprising justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, highlighted that the core issue of the petition is the interpretation of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding the duration and legality of further investigations and the potential stalling of trial proceedings.
Section 193 of the CrPC mandates that a court of session must obtain prior permission from the jurisdictional magistrate court before taking cognizance of an offense. Baghel’s petition argues that his arrest during a further investigation conducted without this mandatory permission is an illegality that fundamentally invalidates the investigation and the arrest itself.
Represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Mayank Jain, Baghel’s legal team pointed out that Section 193 has been applied to procedures under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), as upheld by the Supreme Court in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary judgment in July 2022.
Sibal stated that Baghel was arrested on grounds of non-cooperation with the investigation, despite not having received any summons under Section 50 of the PMLA. He asserted that his non-disclosure of information was cited as the sole reason for his arrest.
In addition to the main appeal, Baghel has filed a separate petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the PMLA and other related provisions of the anti-money laundering law. Senior advocate N Hariharan, also representing Baghel, informed the court that a similar challenge is already pending and is expected to be heard soon. The court has directed Baghel’s petition to be listed along with those related cases.
Hariharan emphasized that investigations cannot continue indefinitely and must have a conclusion. He alleged that Baghel was being held in custody based on witness statements.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED, informed the court that the Chhattisgarh High Court had previously dismissed these allegations as baseless. Responding to the court’s inquiry about the ongoing probe, the ASG mentioned that another bench of the Supreme Court had permitted the ED to complete its investigation within three months in a related case concerning other accused individuals in the same liquor scam.
The ASG added, “They have already moved a petition for bail. These grounds can be raised there. As regards further investigation, this court has permitted me three months. Statements have been recorded of other accused and there is evidence against him.”
The court acknowledged the ED’s submission and stated, “You have to respond to the grounds raised here. We will take up the matter after two weeks.” The court also permitted Baghel’s lawyer to respond to the ED’s reply before the next hearing.
Sibal further highlighted that his arrest was challenged in the high court on both legal and procedural grounds. He contended that the arrest appeared politically motivated, as the ED’s questions primarily focused on his role as the son of the former Chief Minister.
Sibal argued, “The trial has not begun against me yet and even the high court accepts that the Magistrate’s permission is not taken. They have arrested me without having issued any summons asking for information and they attribute non-disclosure (of information). They can be arrested only after issuing me summons under section 53 PMLA.”
Baghel’s petition also accused the ED of practicing a “pick and choose” policy, noting that several co-accused, including excise officers and distillery owners, had not been arrested despite facing more serious allegations and being identified as alleged direct beneficiaries. The petition stated, “When no summons under section 50 of PMLA is issued during three years of investigation, arrest of petitioner for non-cooperation shows a predetermined mind set to arrest.”
The High Court, in its earlier order, had stated, “The grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition are procedural lapses/irregularities which do not amount to illegality,” while allowing him to raise these points in a bail petition.