The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed the plea challenging the arrest and held that ED’s selective approach in the liquor scam probe was not illegal but procedurally irregular.
The bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma has prima facie observed that the conduct of the prosecution reveals a manifestly inconsistent and selective approach being both hot and cold in its approach and has acted in a pick and choose manner in investigation. While procedural lapses are apparent, it is clarified that such irregularities, though regrettable, do not amount to illegality per se, and a distinction between irregularity and illegality.
The ED arrested the petitioner, Chaitanya Baghel on 18 July 2025 in connection with the alleged Liquor Scam. The ED investigation stemmed from complaints filed by the Income Tax Department, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), and Economic Offences Wing (EOW) between 2022 and 2024, alleging money laundering and illicit financial transactions. Despite these long-running investigations, the petitioner was never summoned under Section 50 of PMLA and was unaware of any direct ED action against him.
The ED already possessed all relevant material — including prosecution complaints and seized documents — by November 2022. The ED conducted a search on 10 March 2025 and concluded that the petitioner was involved in money laundering but did not arrest him for over four months. The arrest in July 2025 was allegedly based only on statements of a co-accused absconder, recorded shortly before the arrest.
The petitioner argues the arrest was unnecessary, delayed, and without new evidence, amounting to a violation of personal liberty and due process.
The petitioner contends that his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The arrest and remand orders were issued without compliance with legal requirements under Section 19 of the PMLA and without any fresh material justifying the arrest. The ED already possessed all documents and evidence from earlier investigations by the Income Tax Department, ACB, and EOW since 2022, and no new development occurred before his arrest in July 2025. He was never summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA and was denied the chance to cooperate with the investigation. The arrest, coming four months after a search in March 2025, was allegedly based only on statements of a co-accused absconder, rendering it malafide and mechanical. The action violates his fundamental rights, including personal liberty, and is contrary to settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of his arrest, the reasons to believe, grounds of arrest, and subsequent remand orders.
The court held that the grounds raised in this petition are procedural lapses /irregularities not amounting to illegality and these are the grounds of bail.
The Court found no ground to interfere with the investigation or the arrest effected by the Investigating Agency and dismissed the petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Chaitanya Baghel Versus ED
Case No.: CRMP No. 2506 of 2025
Date: 17.10.2025
Counsel For Appellant: N.Hariharan, Sr. Counsel
Counsel For Respondent: Zoheb Hossain, Advocate
Read More: Cars Witnesses Record-Breaking Sales Surge Post GST 2.0 Implementation
