E-Paper
SC seeks ED reply on Chaitanya Baghel’s plea over arrest in Chhattisgarh liquor scam case
The top court told the ED to file its response within 10 days and posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the plea challenging the arrest of Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel, in the ₹2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam, raising questions on the investigation being carried out by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) without the mandatory sanction of the magistrate required under the criminal procedure law.
Issuing notice on Baghel’s appeal against the Chhattisgarh high court’s October 17 order upholding his arrest, the top court told the ED to file its response within 10 days and posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.
The bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said, “More than the grounds of arrest, this petition is about the interpretation of section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). How long can you continue with further investigation and stall proceedings in trial. This is the issue that needs to be examined.”
Section 193 states that a court of session shall only take cognizance of any offence only after prior permission is granted by the jurisdictional magistrate court. The petition filed by Baghel said, “The arrest of the petitioner, during further investigation conducted without mandatory permission is an illegality going to the root of the matter, which not only renders such further investigation to be void ab initio but also vitiates the arrest.”
Baghel was represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Mayank Jain who pointed out that section 193 has been held to be applicable to the procedure under section 44 the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary judgment in July 2022 that upheld crucial provisions of the Act.
Sibal said, “They have not issued me any summons under section 50 of PMLA and they arrest me on the ground that I have not cooperated with the investigation. My non-disclosure is the only ground for my arrest.”
In addition to the appeal, Baghel filed a separate petition challenging the constitutional validity of section 50 of PMLA among other provisions of the anti-money laundering law. Senior advocate N Hariharan appearing for Baghel told the court that the similar challenge is already pending in the top court and is expected to be heard next week. The court directed Baghel’s petition to be listed along with that batch of cases.
Hariharan further told the court that the investigation cannot continue for eternity as there must be an end to the probe. He alleged that based on statement of witnesses, Baghel is sought to be kept in custody.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju appearing for ED informed the court that all these charges were held baseless by the high court. To the court’s query on further probe, ASG said that on September 26, another bench of the top court, while dealing with another set of accused in the same liquor scam, permitted ED to complete its probe within three months.
“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 law officer said.
The court said, “You have to respond to the grounds raised here. We will take up the matter after two weeks.” The court even permitted Baghel’s lawyer to respond to ED’s reply before the next date of hearing.
Sibal further pointed out to the court that before the high court quashing of arrest was sought both on legal and procedural violations. He submitted that the arrest smacked of political vendetta as the questions put to him by the ED revolved around his role being the son of former CM of the state.
“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,” SIbal added.
The petition filed by Baghel further alleged ED of adopting a “pick and choose” method. It said, “Many co-accused, including excise officers, distillery owners, etc. are not arrested, despite graver allegations and alleged direct beneficiaries. This shows the pick and choose policy of ED…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 order held, “The grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition are procedural lapses/irregularities which do not amount to illegality,” while permitting him to raise these grounds in a bail petition.
