Chhattisgarh High Court Intervenes in Bhupesh Baghel Case
The Chhattisgarh High Court has issued a stay on the trial proceedings in a case involving former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel. This decision, made on Thursday, temporarily halts further actions by a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court concerning allegations of involvement in a morphed CD scandal linked to BJP MLA Rajesh Munat.
Interim Relief Granted by Justice Agrawal
Justice Radhakishan Agrawal granted an interim order in response to a petition filed by Baghel, contesting a directive from the Special Judge (CBI) in Raipur dated January 24, 2026. This directive had reversed a prior discharge and instructed that charges be formally brought against Baghel. A comprehensive order from the High Court is still forthcoming.
Background of the Allegations
The allegations trace back to 2017, when a doctored obscene video purportedly featuring then-minister Rajesh Munat came to light, allegedly aimed at tarnishing his reputation. Subsequent probing led to the case being transferred to the CBI, which charged Baghel and others with crimes including criminal conspiracy, forgery intended to damage reputation, and the distribution of sexually explicit content electronically.
Legal Arguments and Claims
In March 2025, a special judicial magistrate had discharged Baghel, citing insufficient evidence connecting him to the alleged conspiracy or distribution of the video. However, this decision was overturned in January 2026 by the Special Judge (CBI), prompting the current appeal to the High Court.
Baghel’s plea argues that the CBI court exceeded its jurisdiction by altering his discharge, contending that only a trial court could address such matters at the correct procedural point. He maintained that higher courts should intervene in discharge orders solely in exceptional cases, such as when they are patently unlawful or lacking evidentiary support.
More Read
On the substance of the case, Baghel asserted that the prosecution’s material did not establish the necessary “grave suspicion” for framing charges. He argued that mere association with co-accused individuals, such as staying in the same hotel, does not imply participation in a criminal conspiracy. Furthermore, he claimed no evidence linked him directly or indirectly to forgery allegations.
Baghel also highlighted that witness statements only indicated he organized a press conference regarding the arrest of co-accused Vinod Verma, with no evidence suggesting he personally distributed the contentious CDs during this event.
Legal Representation and Future Proceedings
The High Court’s decision to stay the trial court proceedings reflects its consideration of these compelling arguments. Advocates Mayank Jain, Harshwardhan Parganiha, Madhur Jain, Arpit Goel, Harshit Sharma, and Manubha Shankar are representing Baghel as the case proceeds.
