The Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday, upheld the bail granted to Chaitanya Baghel, the son of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, in connection with the ₹2,000 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam case. While affirming the bail, the Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, also chose to expunge certain adverse comments made by the Chhattisgarh High Court against the prosecution in its January 2026 bail order.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court delved into critical legal questions pertaining to the cancellation of bail orders. The Court pondered whether such orders should be annulled solely on the grounds of insufficient reasoning. Justice Bagchi raised a thought-provoking question to Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the prosecution, “Can the correctness of an order be the sole test to deprive the liberty of an accused?”
Justice Bagchi emphasized that the Supreme Court should intervene in bail orders only when the accused’s liberty so severely hampers the administration of justice. He questioned whether the absence of reasons in granting bail should automatically lead to its cancellation, stating, “We have held that reasons be given in an order. But a High Court judge says, ‘I grant bail.’ Can we just set it aside merely because there are no reasons? Such wrong orders are there left, right, and center.”
The Bench expressed concern over the increasing trend of challenging bail orders, which, according to them, diverts focus from completing criminal trials. Justice Bagchi noted, “If prosecutor or investigator is so focused on all this, then the ultimate goal of securing a conviction gets compromised. This is why our jurisprudence in bringing about correctness in granting bail is delaying the further cause of trial.”
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, representing Baghel, concurred with the Court’s observations, pointing out the rising number of bail cancellation proceedings. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju also acknowledged that an erroneous bail order does not necessarily justify the revocation of an accused’s liberty, stating, “Yes, the order may be bad law, but may not be fit to cancel liberty.”
More Read
Justice Bagchi also noted the trend of delivering extensive bail orders in cases involving stringent statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. This, he suggested, requires judges to allocate their time judiciously. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Baghel, remarked that the Court’s observations could contribute to the development of the law.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi added that restoring legal clarity is crucial, especially in “topsy-turvy” situations. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Jethmalani criticized the High Court’s unnecessary strictures against the investigating agency, emphasizing that selectivity in arrests should not occur.
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the bail cancellation plea, kept open broader questions on when bail orders should be interfered with. The Bench stated, “We are not inclined to cancel the bail granted. Questions of law kept open.” Furthermore, it expunged the High Court’s adverse remarks against the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), with the CJI agreeing that such remarks were unwarranted.
More Read
The Court concluded with an order stating, “The remarks made by the High Court which tend to cast aspersion on the prosecution are completely uncalled for and are hereby expunged. All issues are kept open.” Senior Advocates N Hariharan, Mayank Jain, Harshwardhan Parganiha, Madhur Jain, and Arpit Goel also represented Baghel.
