Chhattisgarh HC Pulls Up EOW for ‘Evergreening’ Custody After Investigation Completion

The Chhattisgarh High Court has pulled up the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) for ‘evergreening’ custody after investigation completion. The bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma has raised serious concerns over the arrest and continued incarceration of Chaitanya Baghel, in connection with the alleged multi-crore liquor syndicate scam in the State. The Court was dealing with a regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) arising from FIR No. 04/2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW)/Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) . Background of the Case The prosecution traces its origin to an Enforcement Directorate (ED) communication dated 11 July 2023 under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, alleging the existence of a 2019–2023 liquor syndicate that allegedly operated through licensed government liquor shops in Chhattisgarh. The alleged scam involved illegal manufacture and sale of liquor, generation of unaccounted proceeds, and their distribution among excise officials, bureaucrats, distillers, and political functionaries, causing substantial loss to the State exchequer. Notably, Chaitanya Baghel was not named in the FIR, nor was he arraigned as an accused in the main chargesheet dated 1 July 2024, or in five successive supplementary chargesheets filed over a period of more than one year. In total, 51 accused were named in the case, with 29 chargesheets filed without arrest of the concerned individuals. Sequence of Arrests Raises Judicial Eyebrows The ED registered an ECIR in April 2024 and conducted searches at the applicant’s premises in July 2025, following which he was arrested by the ED on 18 July 2025. While the applicant was nearing the statutory period for default bail after 60 days of custody, the EOW suddenly sought a production warrant and arrested him on 24 September 2025, immediately after the High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea in a related matter. The High Court took note of the applicant’s contention that this arrest amounted to a deliberate “insurance arrest”aimed at defeating statutory and constitutional remedies, particularly when the investigation had substantially concluded long ago. Allegations Against the Applicant The EOW alleged that the applicant had routed proceeds of the excise scam to his construction firm through various channels. However, the Court noted that no recovery of incriminating material was made from the applicant, no searches were conducted by the EOW at his premises, and no further interrogation was carried out after a brief two-hour questioning. The allegation remained vague and unsubstantiated even after police custody remand. Court Examines Abuse of Arrest Powers The High Court engaged in an extensive examination of constitutional safeguards governing arrest, reiterating that arrest is not automatic merely because it is lawful, but must satisfy strict statutory necessity. Relying on landmark Supreme Court judgments such as Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, and Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI, the Court underscored that arrest must be the last resort, not the first impulse. The Court expressed concern over the timing of the arrest, observing that the investigating agency was allegedly aware of the applicant’s supposed role since mid-2024, yet chose to arrest him only when he was on the verge of securing statutory relief. Questioning Post-Chargesheet Investigation A crucial legal issue highlighted before the Court was the legality of further investigation conducted without prior judicial permission after filing the main chargesheet. The applicant argued that the EOW filed multiple supplementary chargesheets without seeking leave of the Court as mandated under Section 173(8) BNSS, rendering the subsequent investigation procedurally infirm. The Court referred to authoritative precedents such as Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, which emphasize judicial oversight over post-chargesheet investigations to prevent arbitrary and endless prosecution. Another striking aspect was the plea of parity. Several co-accused, including those described as masterminds, cash aggregators, and key beneficiaries, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court and the High Court. The applicant, despite being unnamed in the FIR and chargesheets, continued to remain in custody. The Court noted that selective arrest and prosecution in such a large conspiracy raises concerns under Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates equal treatment before law Case Details Case Title: Chaitanya Baghel Versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Case No.: MCRC No. 8224 of 2025 Date: 02.01.2026 Counsel For Applicant: N.Hariharan, Sr. Counsel Counsel For Respondent: Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate Click Here To Read Order Read More: GST Refund Limitation Can’t Be Curtailed Retrospectively: J&K HC Upholds Vested Right to Claim Inverted Duty Refund

Chhattisgarh HC Pulls Up EOW for ‘Evergreening’ Custody After Investigation Completion

Membership Required

Latest articles

‘Bail Is the Rule’: Maharashtra Court Grants Bail to Three Accused in ₹2.82 Crore DRI Firecracker Smuggling Case

CJI Surya Kant Rebukes ‘Reckless’ Media Reports, Says No Plea Was Filed on CJP Protest Police Action

Cabinet Clears Tougher Anti-Paper Leak Bill; 10-Year Jail, ₹10 Crore Fine Proposed

Bombay High Court Notifies Special Courts for Trial of Paper Leak Cases Under Public Examinations Act, 2024

More like this

‘Bail Is the Rule’: Maharashtra Court Grants Bail to Three Accused in ₹2.82 Crore DRI Firecracker Smuggling Case

CJI Surya Kant Rebukes ‘Reckless’ Media Reports, Says No Plea Was Filed on CJP Protest Police Action

Cabinet Clears Tougher Anti-Paper Leak Bill; 10-Year Jail, ₹10 Crore Fine Proposed

About us

Company

Categories