News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 172 | 2026:CGHC:10604

February 28, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has granted regular bail to former Deputy Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Office, Saumya Chaurasia, in connection with the alleged liquor syndicate case being investigated by the Economic Offences Wing and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Justice Arvind Kumar Verma allowed the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in MCRC No. 1633 of 2026, holding that continued custodial detention was not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. The Court noted that the prosecution case rests predominantly on documentary and electronic evidence that is already in the possession of the investigating agency 172.

The case stems from FIR No. 04 of 2024 registered by the EOW/ACB, Raipur, alleging large-scale irregularities in the liquor trade in Chhattisgarh between 2019 and 2023. The offences invoked include Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 172. The prosecution has alleged the existence of a structured syndicate involving public officials and private individuals that generated and distributed illegal proceeds worth thousands of crores.

According to the State, Chaurasia, by virtue of her position in the Chief Minister’s Office, played an active and influential role in facilitating the operations of the alleged syndicate. It was argued that digital evidence, witness statements and electronic records pointed to her involvement and that the investigation was still at a sensitive stage.

The defence, however, emphasized that she was not named in the FIR and was not arrayed as an accused in the main charge sheet filed on July 1, 2024, nor in seven subsequent supplementary charge sheets filed over nearly two years. Her arrest took place on January 14, 2026, through a production warrant, after substantial progress had already been made in the investigation 172. It was also pointed out that no recovery was pending from her and that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was largely documentary in nature.

After considering the case diary and rival submissions, the High Court identified certain undisputed circumstances. It observed that despite prolonged investigation and multiple charge sheets, the applicant had not initially been named as an accused. The Court further noted that the entire case appears to be based on digital communications, official records and documentary material that have already been seized. In such a situation, the necessity of custodial detention must be carefully examined 172.

The Court referred to established principles laid down by the Supreme Court that arrest cannot be mechanical and that detention pending trial should not assume a punitive character. It reiterated that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly when the accused has cooperated and the evidence is secured. The order records that during remand, the applicant was interrogated for only about two hours, indicating that no extensive custodial interrogation was required 172.

A significant factor in the Court’s reasoning was parity with co-accused. The record showed that a large number of co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail, including by the Supreme Court. Judicial consistency, the Court observed, demands that similarly situated accused not be treated differently without compelling justification 172. The State’s contention that Chaurasia stood on a distinct footing was found insufficient at the stage of bail.

The Court also took note of the sheer scale of the prosecution case, involving 52 accused, over 1,100 witnesses and more than 1,000 documents. With investigation continuing against others and charges yet to be framed in respect of the applicant, the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future 172. Prolonged incarceration in such circumstances, the Court held, would not serve the ends of justice and would raise concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution.

While granting bail, the Court directed that the applicant be released from the date of filing of the charge sheet against her, subject to stringent conditions to safeguard the investigation and trial. These include surrender of passport, full cooperation with proceedings, non-interference with witnesses, abstention from any offence during the period of bail, and prompt intimation to the court of any change in address or contact details 172. The prosecution has been given liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of any violation. With these directions, the bail application was allowed.

Case Reference : MCRC No. 1633 of 2026, Saumya Chaurasia D/o Lt. Shri O.N. Chaurasia v. State of Chhattisgarh through Economic Offences Wing (EOW)/Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Headquarters, Opposite Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur; for the Applicant: Shri Siddhartha Dave, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Harshwardhan Parganiha, Shri Mayank Jain, Shri Anshul Rai, Shri Madhur Jain, Shri Harshit Sharma, Shri Arpit Goel and Ms. Alekhya Shastry, Advocates (through VC) and Ms. Manubha Shankar, Advocate; for the Respondent/State: Shri Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General.