ED names 81 in Chhattisgarh liquor case; HC grants Chaitanya Baghel bail

What the Record Shows

The Chhattisgarh liquor case is a money-laundering matter that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is prosecuting under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and it remains at the allegation stage. Per the Chhattisgarh High Court's order dated 2 January 2026 in Chaitanya Baghel vs Directorate of Enforcement, the ED alleges cumulative proceeds of crime exceeding Rs 2,161 crore generated through a liquor syndicate that operated in the state, while a parallel state Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) case alleges proceeds exceeding Rs 2,500 crore. Those are the agencies' allegations, recorded by the court, not findings of guilt.

The ED has filed multiple prosecution complaints, and per the High Court order the PMLA proceedings name 21 accused, with 51 accused in the predicate offence; the ED filed its final prosecution complaint in December 2025. Among those named across the proceedings are Anwar Dhebar and Trilok Singh Dhillon, described by the ED as syndicate members; Anil Tuteja, a retired IAS officer; Niranjan Das, a former State Excise Commissioner; Saumya Chaurasia, a former deputy secretary; Kawasi Lakhma, a Congress MLA and former state Excise Minister arrested in January 2025; and Chaitanya Baghel, son of the former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, arrested by the ED on 18 July 2025.

Two points of fairness belong in the lead. First, Bhupesh Baghel is not, on the record reviewed here, an accused in the ED complaint, and nothing in this report should be read to suggest otherwise. Second, the Congress has publicly characterised the arrests of Kawasi Lakhma and Chaitanya Baghel as political retaliation by the successor state government against a former administration, and the accused deny the allegations. All 81 people named across the case are accused, not convicted.

How It Worked

The mechanism, as the ED describes it, ran between 2019 and 2022. Per the ED's case as summarised in the High Court order, a syndicate of excise officials, liquor licence-holders and distributors sold unaccounted country liquor through government retail outlets, collected commissions on the allotment of distiller and bottle-maker contracts, and extracted per-case levies, with the proceeds generated through what the order describes as "accounted liquor, unaccounted liquor, cartelization" and the manipulation of FL-10A licences. The ED alleges the then State Excise Commissioner shielded the operation from punitive action.

The ED alleges that Chaitanya Baghel "received approximately Rs 1000 crores in cash as commission from illicit proceeds" and that he was associated with the syndicate members Anwar Dhebar and Trilok Singh Dhillon. Every one of these characterisations is the ED's allegation, attributed to its prosecution complaints, and none has been tested at trial.

The statutory framework the ED invokes, as cited in the order, is Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, which define and penalise money laundering, with the arrest made under Section 19 and statements recorded under Section 50; bail is governed by the twin conditions in Section 45. The investigation is described in the order as ongoing.

Procedurally the matter has moved through the familiar PMLA sequence: an ECIR built on a predicate offence registered by the state agencies, searches and arrests, a series of prosecution complaints and provisional attachments of assets the ED alleges are proceeds of the offence, and then bail litigation before the High Court as the accused have sought release pending trial.

Who Lost Money

The party said to have lost money is the Chhattisgarh state exchequer, through excise revenue the ED alleges was diverted, and, indirectly, the state's taxpayers. Consumers who bought liquor sold off the books through government outlets are the other group affected by the alleged scheme, though the loss to any individual buyer is not quantified in the record.

The large figures in this case are allegations of the scale of the alleged offence, not sums recovered for anyone. The ED's roughly Rs 2,161 crore proceeds-of-crime figure and the ACB's separate Rs 2,500 crore figure are each that agency's own estimate, recorded by the court, and they should be read as allegations. The ED has provisionally attached assets it alleges represent proceeds of the offence, but a provisional attachment is a claim over property that requires confirmation by the adjudicating authority; it is not a recovery paid to the exchequer, and no distribution to any victim arises from it at this stage.

Because the matter is pre-trial, no court has determined that any specific sum was lost through the conduct of any named accused. The amounts remain what the agencies allege.

Where It Stands Now

The current position, re-checked against the record, is that the case is at the trial stage and several of the accused have secured bail. Per the Chhattisgarh High Court order dated 2 January 2026, Chaitanya Baghel was granted bail, the court observing that continued incarceration in a prolonged matter "would amount to pre-trial punishment" and that the protection of Article 21 weighed in the balance. He had been in custody at Raipur Central Jail since his arrest on 18 July 2025. Bail applications and related proceedings for other accused, including Niranjan Das and Saumya Chaurasia, have also been heard by the High Court in early 2026, and Anil Tuteja's matter was before the court in 2025.

The ED's final prosecution complaint was filed in December 2025, and the investigation is described as ongoing. The trial on the PMLA charges is yet to conclude, and the predicate offence proceeds separately before the state agencies.

A chargesheet or prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The grant of bail is not an acquittal; it means the accused await trial while at liberty.

What It Means

This matter is a study in how a PMLA case is built and contested. The ED constructs an allegation of proceeds of crime, attaches assets, and arrests; the accused then test that case through bail litigation, where courts increasingly weigh the length of pre-trial custody against the strict statutory bar on bail. The Chhattisgarh High Court's reasoning here, that prolonged incarceration before trial can itself become punishment, reflects a wider judicial trend and is worth understanding on its own terms.

For a reader following enforcement news, the literacy point is to keep the stages distinct. An arrest and a prosecution complaint mark the allegation stage; a provisional attachment is a claim over assets, not a recovery; a bail order is not a verdict; and a headline proceeds-of-crime figure is an agency's estimate, not a proven loss. You can follow how these cases develop through the Oquilia enforcement archive, alongside related coverage such as the Delhi excise policy discharge and the ED's chargesheet in the West Bengal recruitment case, both of which turn on the same distinction between an accusation and a finding.

The durable, non-alarmist takeaway is procedural: excise licensing and government retail are documented systems, and it is precisely the paper trail of allotments, licences and outlet records that allows such allegations to be investigated and, in time, tested in court.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. The ED has filed prosecution complaints, which contain allegations, not findings of guilt. Everyone named across the case is accused and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The PMLA charges are yet to be tried, and the accused deny the allegations. Due process continues.

Is Bhupesh Baghel an accused in this case?

On the record reviewed here, the former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel is not named as an accused in the ED's prosecution complaint. His son, Chaitanya Baghel, is named and was arrested by the ED, and it would be wrong to imply the father is an accused on the basis of that identification.

Has anyone been convicted?

No. No court has convicted any accused in this matter. The case is at the trial stage. Per the Chhattisgarh High Court order of 2 January 2026, Chaitanya Baghel was granted bail, and other accused have also pursued bail; a grant of bail is not an acquittal.

What are the amounts alleged?

Per the High Court order, the ED alleges cumulative proceeds of crime exceeding Rs 2,161 crore, and the state Anti-Corruption Bureau alleges proceeds exceeding Rs 2,500 crore; the ED further alleges that Chaitanya Baghel received about Rs 1,000 crore in cash as commission. Each figure is that agency's allegation, not a judicial finding or a recovered sum.

Where can I read the official record?

The Chhattisgarh High Court's 2 January 2026 order in Chaitanya Baghel vs Directorate of Enforcement, which records the ED's allegations, the statutory provisions and the bail decision, is available on Indian Kanoon.

This report is based on the Chhattisgarh High Court order dated 2 January 2026 in Chaitanya Baghel vs Directorate of Enforcement and related High Court bail orders in the same matter, reviewed on 1 August 2026.