The Supreme Court raised concern over the extended custody of an accused while hearing bail pleas in the ₹2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam, questioning ongoing investigation delays despite three chargesheets. The Court observed that prolonged pre-trial detention amounts to punishment, particularly when the case does not involve serious offences like terrorism or multiple murders.
In brief facts, the petitioners, Arvind Singh and Amit Singh, had sought bail in connection with the liquor scam case. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that a large-scale conspiracy involving senior state officials, private individuals, and political leaders led to the generation of over ₹2,000 crore between 2019 and 2022 through unlawful means in liquor trade. The ED’s case was based on a prosecution complaint initiated following an income tax chargesheet filed in 2022. It was alleged that bribes were systematically collected from distillers to manipulate liquor sales through the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), with substantial off-the-books transactions in country liquor.
During the hearing, senior advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for the petitioners, contended that although three chargesheets had been filed, charges were yet to be framed. He pointed out that the petitioners were arrested along with three other individuals and noted that six persons, including public servants, had already been granted bail. Emphasising the pendency of investigation despite 457 listed witnesses, Agarwal argued for bail, citing the protracted nature of proceedings. On the other hand, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the State, opposed the bail pleas. He submitted that custodial confrontation of the petitioners with other accused persons, particularly the former Excise Minister Kawasi Lakhma, was still necessary for effective investigation.
While considering the submissions, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made strong oral observations. The Court remarked, "Investigation will proceed at its own pace. It may even continue indefinitely. Despite filing three chargesheets, the accused remains incarcerated, effectively turning the process itself into a punishment. This is not a case involving terrorism or a triple murder.” The Court stressed that the criminal process should not be used to impose pre-conviction punishment through indefinite custody.
Ultimately, the Top Court permitted the petitioners to be confronted with the former minister and scheduled the next hearing for May 9, 2025. The matter remains pending, with further confrontation proceedings directed by the Court before deciding on the bail applications.
Picture Source :
