Bhupesh Baghel's son claims arrest illegal; Supreme Court calls for ED response
Chaitanya has challenged the October 17 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court that dismissed his plea against arrest.
The Supreme Court has sought the Enforcement Directorate's response on a plea filed by Chaitanya Baghel, former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel’s son, challenging his arrest in a liquor scam case.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi has directed the ED to file a counter in three weeks time. Court was told by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Baghel, that his arrest on grounds of non-cooperation was wrong as he had not been summoned even once by the agency.
Baghel has also approached the court with a petition challenging Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
It is to be noted that in August Supreme Court had refused to entertain a petition filed by Bhupesh Kumar Baghel, alleging systemic misuse of investigative powers under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Bhupesh Baghel and his son Chaitanya Baghel are both accused in the alleged liquor scam of Chhattisgarh.
Baghel's son, Chaitanya Baghel was also arrested in the money laundering case recently. ED has alleged that Chaitanya was involved in handling over Rs 1,000 crore of illegal money made from the suspected liquor scam in the state. ED claims he used Rs 16.7 crore for developing his real estate project.
Chaitanya Baghel has also challenged the October 17 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court that dismissed his plea against arrest. The High Court had said that the ED conducted further investigation without mandatory permission of the jurisdictional court, but the same was only a procedural irregularity.
The former CM's petitions challenged the powers of the CBI and the ED to arrest and investigate accused individuals and their jurisdictions in these cases. "These provisions, which permit ‘further investigation’ without adequate procedural safeguards, confer unfettered discretion on investigating agencies, enabling arbitrary and prolonged investigations that violate the fundamental rights to equality, personal liberty, and fair trial under Articles 14, 20, and 21", the petition argued.
Baghel argued that the absence of mandatory judicial oversight and statutory timelines allows agencies to file incomplete and piecemeal chargesheets, frustrating the indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC and Section 187(3) BNSS. He further challenged piecemeal or successive supplementary chargesheets which defeat the right of statutory default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. or Section 187(3) BNSS.
Notably, since 2015, Bhupesh Baghel has been named in 12 FIRs. He stated that the filing of multiple chargesheets against specific individuals, as seen in many cases including in FIR No. 04/2024 (Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR) with chargesheets filed between July 2024 and June 2025 covering only subsets of accused, indicates a deliberate strategy to prolong proceedings and circumvent statutory protections, violating the principle that investigations pertain to the offence, not the offender. Court was further told the investigating agencies are filing incomplete chargesheets with recitals of ongoing ‘further investigation’, to defeat the right to default bail, a fundamental right under Article 21.
Alleging political vendetta, the former CM's petition submitted, "Recently, the CBI conducted search and seizure operations at his premises, heightening his apprehension of arbitrary detention. Moreover, the son of the Petitioner, on 18.07.2025, has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate. The absence of effective mechanisms to regulate further investigations leaves accused persons vulnerable to harassment and indefinite detention, as agencies operate with unchecked discretion. This systemic failure not only prejudices the Petitioner but also undermines the rule of law, as agencies appear to act with bias rather than impartiality, eroding public confidence in the justice system.".
Case Title: Chaitanya Baghel Vs Union of India, ED
Hearing Date: October 31, 2025
Bench: Justices Kant and Bagchi