7 months ago
2
The Supreme Court connected Friday (October 31, 2025) asked the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to respond to Chaitanya Baghel, lad of erstwhile Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, who challenged the legality of his arrest successful a liquor scam case connected the crushed that helium did not cooperate with the investigation.
Issuing announcement to the ED, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi besides raised the constituent of investigating agencies stalling proceedings proceedings from opening by “endlessly” continuing with the investigation, arsenic a effect of which the accused proceed to languish successful situation arsenic an undertrial.
“Besides the grounds of arrest, the contented present is the mentation of Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023… How agelong tin you proceed with your ‘further investigation’?” Justice Bagchi asked Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED.
Mr. Raju said the bureau had a statutory clip of 3 months, and this clip play has been upheld by the Supreme Court itself. Appearing for Mr. Baghel, elder advocates Kapil Sibal and N. Hariharan said their lawsuit was arrested connected the crushed of non-cooperation with the scam investigation.
“But I was ne'er summoned by the ED nether Section 50 of the PMLA successful the archetypal place. They ne'er sent maine a announcement to look earlier them… Then however tin they accidental I impeded the probe by not revealing the facts… How could they apprehension me? Arrests nether Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) tin lone beryllium affected if they are prima facie convinced I person committed the crime… But however tin they travel to specified a decision without archetypal calling oregon summoning me?” Mr. Sibal asked the court.
Mr. Sibal said the modus operandi of the ED seemed to beryllium archetypal the filing of a ailment and past arrest, aft which is to guarantee the proceedings ne'er begins by repeating the litany that determination is further probe to beryllium made. “The probe does not look to end,” Mr. Hariharan submitted.
The ₹2,000 crore liquor scam involves allegations that politicians, excise officials and backstage operators manipulated the liquor commercialized successful Chhattisgarh betwixt 2019 and 2022. Mr. Baghel, who was arrested successful July, is accused of laundering a portion of the proceeds of transgression done ammunition companies and existent property investments.
In a abstracted petition, Mr. Baghel has challenged the constitutionality of circumstantial provisions of the PMLA for violating accused persons’ cardinal rights against self-incrimination and to support soundlessness nether questioning by an investigating agency.
“Section 50 and 63 of the PMLA are unconstitutional, being violative of cardinal rights guaranteed nether the Constitution. The model nether Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the Act infringes the cardinal rights against aforesaid incrimination guaranteed nether Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The provisions licence the ED to summon immoderate person, compel answers and accumulation of documents nether a menace of penalty,” helium has submitted.
But the Supreme Court refused to entertain abstracted petitions filed by Mr. Baghel and his son, Chaitanya Baghel, who was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) nether the PMLA successful the Chhattisgarh liquor scam lawsuit connected July 18, challenging the “piecemeal investigations” being carried retired by the ED. They contended that the probe has go a root of harassment.
The Baghels, represented by elder advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi on with advocator Vipin Nair, said the prosecution successful the liquor lawsuit was systematically misusing Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 193(9) of the BNSS.
“These provisions, which licence ‘further investigation’ without capable procedural safeguards, confer unfettered discretion connected investigating agencies, enabling arbitrary and prolonged investigations that interruption the cardinal rights to equality, idiosyncratic liberty, and just proceedings nether Articles 14, 20, and 21,” the petitions had contended.
Similarly, it submitted that Section 44 of the PMLA, which simply deals with the procedural aspects concerning the cognisance and proceedings of offences earlier the Special Court, cannot beryllium utilized to confer the ED with substantive powers of “further investigation”.
