News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 173 : 2026:CGHC:10603
February 28, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has granted regular bail to former Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister, Saumya Chaurasia, in a money laundering case linked to the alleged multi-crore liquor procurement scam in the state. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma delivered the order on February 28, 2026, in MCRC No. 1653 of 2026, arising out of ECIR No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The case traces back to a predicate FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur, alleging large-scale irregularities in liquor procurement and distribution between 2019 and 2023. According to the prosecution, the alleged scam resulted in proceeds of crime amounting to approximately ₹2,883 crore, of which around ₹2,161 crore was claimed to be illegal earnings. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that a syndicate of bureaucrats, political figures and private individuals manipulated the state’s excise framework, controlled procurement through the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited, collected illegal commissions and laundered funds through cash transactions and hawala channels.
The ED claimed that Chaurasia played a supervisory role in the alleged network. The agency relied on statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, WhatsApp communications, diary entries and witness statements to argue that she coordinated financial settlements, supervised the movement of funds and facilitated appointments of key officials in the excise department. It further alleged that approximately ₹115.5 crore in proceeds of crime were handled or routed at her instance, including alleged cash deliveries through intermediaries.
On the other hand, the defence maintained that she was not named in the predicate FIR or the original ECIR and that no direct recovery or money trail had been traced to her. It was argued that the case rested largely on statements of co-accused and inferential material, and that the investigation had already culminated in the filing of prosecution complaints. The defence also highlighted that she had been granted bail in other related matters, including coal and DMF cases, and had complied with all bail conditions.
While examining the bail plea, the High Court applied the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, which require the court to record a prima facie satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The court clarified that at the bail stage it was not required to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence or hold a mini-trial. It observed that the prosecution’s case against the applicant largely rested on statements and inferential allegations, whose evidentiary value would be tested during trial.
The court also took note of the timeline. The ECIR was registered in 2024, while the applicant was arrested only on December 16, 2025, after prolonged investigation. The prosecution complaint had already been filed. The court observed that arrest after extensive investigation and filing of complaint is a relevant factor while considering bail.
Parity with co-accused was another significant factor. The court recorded that several co-accused, including individuals described as principal conspirators, had already been granted bail. It referred to the Supreme Court’s direction dated February 9, 2026, to consider previous bail orders in favour of the applicant and other co-accused while deciding the present application. In that context, the High Court held that continued detention would be inconsistent with settled bail principles.
The order also reflects concern over successive arrests in multiple cases. The court noted that the applicant had faced several arrests across different proceedings and had been granted bail on earlier occasions. Such a pattern, the court observed, required careful scrutiny in light of the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21.
Addressing the apprehension of witness tampering, the court found that the concerns expressed by the Enforcement Directorate were general in nature and not supported by specific material indicating attempts to interfere with evidence. With the investigation substantially complete and material already collected, continued custodial interrogation was found to be unwarranted.
After weighing the statutory requirements under Section 45 PMLA, the nature of allegations, the stage of investigation and the principle of parity, the High Court concluded that the twin conditions were satisfied at the prima facie stage. It accordingly granted bail to Saumya Chaurasia, subject to conditions.
The ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing Chhattisgarh liquor scam proceedings, which involve 81 accused persons, more than 100 witnesses and voluminous documentary evidence. The trial in the predicate offence is yet to commence.
Case Reference : MCRC No. 1653 of 2026, Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur Zonal Office; Counsels 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/ED: Mr. Zohaib Hossain, Advocate (through VC), assisted by Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Special Public Prosecutor.
