News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 44
Bilaspur, January 13, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Saumya Chaurasia in connection with the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam, holding that no exceptional circumstances exist at this stage to justify pre-arrest protection in a case involving serious economic and corruption-related offences.
In a detailed order delivered on January 13, 2026, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma dismissed Chaurasia’s application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court noted that while Chaurasia is not named in the original FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing and Anti-Corruption Bureau, the investigation remains ongoing and involves allegations of large-scale financial irregularities with far-reaching public impact.
The case arises from FIR No. 04 of 2024, which alleges that between 2019 and 2022 a well-organised syndicate operated an illegal liquor network through licensed government outlets in Chhattisgarh, generating massive illicit profits and causing substantial loss to the state exchequer. The prosecution claims that the proceeds of crime exceeded ₹4,000 crore and were systematically routed to influence political and administrative functionaries.
Chaurasia had argued that she was falsely implicated, was never summoned or interrogated during nearly two years of investigation, and is already in judicial custody in a separate Enforcement Directorate case arising from a different ECIR. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, her counsel contended that custody in one case does not bar the grant of anticipatory bail in another and that her personal liberty under Article 21 was at stake.
The State strongly opposed the plea, submitting that anticipatory bail in corruption and economic offences is an exception, not the rule. Prosecutors told the court that digital evidence, including WhatsApp communications, prima facie points to Chaurasia’s supervisory role in accounting and routing illicit funds. The State also stressed the need for custodial interrogation to confront her with documentary and digital material, trace the flow of money, and unearth the larger conspiracy.
After examining the record, the High Court held that economic offences constitute a distinct class and require a cautious judicial approach. The court rejected the argument that the absence of Chaurasia’s name in the FIR or the delay in seeking her interrogation automatically entitled her to anticipatory bail. It observed that custodial interrogation can be a legitimate investigative requirement in complex financial crimes and that granting interim protection at this stage could impede the investigation.
The court also clarified that seeking a production warrant does not violate Article 21 when done in accordance with law, and that anticipatory bail cannot be used as a shield against a lawful probe. Finding no compelling or exceptional circumstances, the High Court dismissed the application, while making it clear that its observations are confined to the bail stage and will not affect the merits of the trial.
With this ruling, the investigation into the alleged liquor scam in Chhattisgarh continues, as the State pursues further custodial questioning and evidence collection in one of the most significant corruption cases to surface in the region in recent years.
Case Reference : MCRCA No. 11 of 2026, Saumya Chaurasia, daughter of Late Shri O.N. Chaurasia, resident of Durg, versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau (EOW/ACB), Headquarters at Telibandha, Raipur; counsels for the applicant were Shri Siddarth Dave, Senior Advocate, appearing through video conference and assisted by Shri Harshwardhan Parganiha, Shri Anshul Rai, Shri Mayank Jain, Shri Madhur Jain, Shri Arpit Goel, Shri Harshit Sharma, Shri Ojaswa Pathak, Ms. Alekhya Shastry and Ms. Manubha Shankar, Advocates, while the respondent State was represented by Shri Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General, and Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General.