The Chhattisgarh High Court granted bail to former Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister Saumya Chaurasia in a money laundering case arising out of the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam, holding that the principle of parity with co-accused and the pattern of successive arrests were relevant considerations in favour of granting relief.
Justice Arvind Kumar Verma passed the order while hearing a regular bail application filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in connection with ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The case arises from a predicate offence registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau relating to an alleged large-scale liquor procurement and distribution scam in Chhattisgarh between 2019 and 2023.
According to the prosecution, the scam involved manipulation of the State’s excise policy and liquor procurement system by a syndicate comprising bureaucrats, political figures and intermediaries. The alleged proceeds of crime were estimated at about ₹2,883 crore, out of which approximately ₹2,161 crore was said to be illegal earnings generated through commissions on liquor supply, sale of unaccounted liquor, annual payments by distillers, and profits through FL-10A licences.
The ED alleged that Chaurasia played a supervisory role in the syndicate and coordinated financial transactions relating to the illicit proceeds. Investigators relied on digital communications, WhatsApp chats, statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, and diary entries recovered from co-accused to claim that she monitored financial accounts of the syndicate and facilitated the movement of illicit funds. It was alleged that around ₹115.5 crore in proceeds of crime were handled through various intermediaries and hawala channels at her instance.
Chaurasia, who was arrested on 16 December 2025, argued that she was neither named in the predicate FIR nor in the ECIR and that no proceeds of crime had been recovered from her. Her counsel contended that the case against her was largely based on statements of co-accused and inferences drawn from chats without independent corroboration. It was further submitted that the investigation was already complete, prosecution complaints had been filed, and continued detention was unnecessary.
The applicant also highlighted that she had been arrested six times in different cases arising out of related investigations despite being repeatedly granted bail by courts, including the Supreme Court. This pattern of successive arrests, it was argued, amounted to an attempt to prolong incarceration despite earlier judicial orders granting her liberty.
Opposing the bail plea, the ED contended that Chaurasia acted as a key coordinator in the alleged liquor syndicate and played a supervisory role in handling illicit funds, influencing appointments in the excise department, and facilitating hawala transactions. The agency argued that the seriousness of the economic offence, the scale of the alleged laundering, and the applicant’s influence warranted continued custody under the stringent bail conditions prescribed in Section 45 of the PMLA.
After examining the material on record, the Court observed that the allegations against the applicant were largely based on statements and inferential material whose evidentiary value would ultimately be tested during trial. The Court also noted that the investigation had substantially progressed and the prosecution complaint had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial interrogation.
A significant factor weighed by the Court was that several co-accused, including alleged principal conspirators such as Anwar Dhebar, Arun Pati Tripathi, Anil Tuteja and Trilok Singh, had already been granted bail. In light of the Supreme Court’s direction that the applicant’s bail plea be considered keeping in mind earlier bail orders granted to her and other co-accused, the High Court held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity.
The Court further took note of the applicant’s repeated arrests across multiple cases despite earlier grants of bail, observing that the pattern of successive arrests warranted scrutiny when assessing continued detention.
While acknowledging that economic offences are serious in nature, the Court reiterated that gravity alone cannot justify indefinite incarceration and that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 must also be balanced. Considering the stage of investigation, the grant of bail to co-accused, and the Supreme Court’s directions regarding parity, the Court allowed the bail application.
Accordingly, the High Court ordered that Saumya Chaurasia be released on bail, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure her presence during trial and to safeguard the investigation.
Appearances:
For Applicant: Shri Siddhartha Dave, Sr. 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 Respondent: Mr. Zohaib Hossain, Advocate through VC assisted by Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Special Public Prosecutor