High Court Grants Bail in High-Profile Liquor Syndicate Case: Analyzing the Doctrine of Parity and Procedural Safeguards under BNSS

The High Court of Chhattisgarh recently delivered a significant judgment in the matter of Chaitanya Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh, addressing the fundamental liberties of an individual amidst allegations of a colossal financial scam. The Court’s decision to grant bail in the alleged Rs. 4000 Crore liquor scam underscores the judiciary's commitment to the doctrine of parity and the strict adherence to procedural due process under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

This analysis delves into the factual matrix, the procedural irregularities highlighted by the defense, and the judicial reasoning that prioritized constitutional rights over executive overreach.

The Factual Matrix: Anatomy of the Investigation

The genesis of the legal battle lies in a massive investigation initiated based on a letter dated 11.07.2023 from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The allegations painted a picture of a sophisticated syndicate operating between 2019 and 2023, involving the manufacture and sale of illegal liquor through government-licensed outlets in Chhattisgarh. The prosecution claimed this operation generated illicit proceeds that were siphoned off to bureaucrats, excise officials, distillers, and political figures, resulting in a substantial loss to the state exchequer.

The Timeline of Events

The procedural history of the case reveals a complex web of filings and custody battles:

  • FIR Registration: The Economic Offences Wing / Anti-Corruption Bureau (EOW/ACB) registered FIR No. 04/2024 on 17.01.2024.
  • Initial Investigation: The probe continued for nearly 21 months.
  • Charge Sheets: The primary Charge sheet No. 03/2024 was filed on 01.07.2024, arraigning four accused. Subsequently, five supplementary charge sheets were filed on dates including 27.09.2024, 18.11.2024, and extending into 2025.
  • Status of the Applicant: Crucially, the Applicant was not named in the initial FIR nor arraigned as an accused in the subsequent charge sheets, despite the investigation referencing "further investigation underway."

The Applicant faced arrest by the ED on 18.07.2025. Following the rejection of anticipatory bail, the EOW arrested the Applicant on 24.09.2025. This arrest occurred immediately after the Applicant sought statutory remedies, raising questions about the timing and intent of the custodial measures.