Raipur, Aug 18 The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Monday sought fresh custodial remand of Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, as his 14-day interrogation period in the alleged Rs 2,100 crore liquor scam came to an end.
However, the special court deferred the hearing to Tuesday following the reported demise of a senior Bar Council member. With the hearing deferred and no decision taken, Chaitanya remains in jail under judicial custody for another day.
Chaitanya Baghel was arrested on July 18 following ED raids at his Bhilai residence. The agency alleges he played a central role in laundering over Rs 1,000 crore of illicit proceeds from a liquor syndicate that operated between 2019 and 2022 during the Congress-led government.
According to the ED, Rs 16.7 crore was funnelled into real estate projects to mask the origin of the funds. The alleged scam involved off-the-books sales of country-made liquor through government-run shops, manipulation of FL-10A licences for foreign liquor, and cartel-like practices facilitated by the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL).
The ED claims the syndicate collected commissions from distillers and vendors, bypassing the state exchequer entirely.
Meanwhile, Bhupesh Baghel’s legal challenge to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) suffered a setback.
On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to entertain his petition questioning the constitutional validity of Sections 44, 50, and 63 of the Act. A bench led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi advised Baghel to approach the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Baghels, argued that the ED’s piecemeal charge sheets and prolonged investigations violated fundamental rights and delayed trial. The bench, however, maintained that further investigation could benefit the accused if conducted within legal bounds.
As the legal battle intensifies, Tuesday’s hearing will determine whether Chaitanya Baghel returns to ED custody or remains in judicial remand. The case continues to stir political and legal debate, with implications for both state governance and the broader interpretation of investigative powers under PMLA.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor