Chhattisgarh High Court Takes Firm Stand in Massive Liquor Scam Case
The Chhattisgarh High Court delivered a significant ruling on Wednesday. It dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Saumya Chaurasia, a former deputy secretary in the chief minister's office. She faces serious allegations in a staggering Rs 4,000 crore illegal liquor syndicate case.
Court's Clear Principle: Bail is Not a Protective Shield
Justice Arvind Kumar Verma presided over the hearing. He made a crucial observation that sets a strong legal precedent. The court stated clearly that anticipatory bail cannot act as a shield against a legitimate and lawful investigation. This is especially true in cases involving grave economic offences.
The court emphasized the far-reaching societal and public ramifications of such corruption cases. Granting bail at this sensitive stage, the bench noted, would disrupt the entire investigative process. It would hinder the crucial collection of evidence needed to unravel the conspiracy.
Details of the Alleged Scam and the Accused's Role
The alleged scam operated from 2019 to 2022. It involved the manufacturing and sale of illegal liquor through licensed government outlets. Investigators claim the illicit profits were systematically distributed among syndicate members. The funds were then allegedly used to unlawfully influence political and administrative functionaries.
Saumya Chaurasia's specific role, as per the investigation, was central. She is accused of monitoring, supervising, and accounting for the proceeds of the crime. The prosecution argued she facilitated the collection and routing of the massive illicit funds generated from the scam.
The state strongly opposed her bail plea. It argued the application was misconceived and premature. The prosecution contended that Chaurasia's complicity was direct and borne out by collected evidence, not merely incidental.
Defense Arguments and the Court's Rejection
Senior advocate Siddarth Dave represented Chaurasia in court. He argued the case struck at constitutional disciplines governing arrest and liberty. He pointed to his client's unimpeachable conduct and noted she had been granted interim bail in other proceedings without any allegations of misuse.
Dave also highlighted that other co-accused, including excise officers, had already received judicial protection.
However, the court found these arguments insufficient. The bench ruled that the mere absence of Chaurasia's name in the initial FIR or any delay in summoning her were not determinative factors. With the investigation ongoing and at a decisive stage, the court deemed custodial interrogation necessary.
The court stressed that economic offences form a distinct class of crimes. In such complex cases involving vast sums of money, custodial interrogation assumes great significance. It is essential for a fair, effective, and meaningful investigation to trace the flow of funds and confront the accused with evidence.
The court concluded there were no exceptional or compelling circumstances to grant bail. With several witnesses yet to be examined and material evidence still to be collected, the plea was denied. Saumya Chaurasia remains in judicial custody in connection with separate proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate.
