Written by Richa SahayNew Delhi | Updated: January 15, 2026 11:59 AM IST 4 min readChhattisgarh High Court news: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application observing that it may disrupt the investigative process and the collection of evidence. (Image is enhanced using AI)Liquor scam case news: Observing that anticipatory bail applications cannot act as a shield against a lawful investigation, particularly in cases involving grave economic offences having societal and public ramifications, the Chhattisgarh High Court has denied relief to the former deputy secretary of the chief minister’s office involved in the alleged Rs 4,000 crore liquor scam case.Justice Arvind Kumar Verma was hearing the plea of Saumya Chaurasia, a former deputy secretary to the chief minister’s office, for allegedly being involved in a large-scale syndicate involving the manufacturing and sale of illegal liquor through a licensed government outlet, generating illegal profits.“Anticipatory bail is not intended to operate as a shield against a legitimate and lawful investigation, particularly in cases involving grave economic offences and allegations of corruption, which have far-reaching societal and public ramifications,” the court added. Express InfoGenIE FindingsMere absence of Chaurasia’s name in the FIR or delay in summoning her cannot be determinative factors for the grant of anticipatory bail, particularly when the investigation is continuing.When the investigation is at a sensitive and decisive stage, custodial interrogation will be required to unfold the larger conspiracy, trace the flow of funds and confront the applicant with documentary and digital evidence.Economic offences constitute a “distinct” class, and custodial interrogation in such cases assumes significance for a fair, effective and meaningful investigation.Also Read | Delhi High Court censures order granting anticipatory bail to murder accused, calls it ‘perverse’, ‘unjustified’Grant of anticipatory bail at this point would disrupt the investigative process and the collection of evidence.There are no exceptional or compelling circumstances that support the anticipatory bail plea, whereas the investigation is ongoing, several witnesses are yet to be examined, and material evidence is yet to be collected.BackgroundChaurasia was alleged to be involved in a large-scale liquor scam operating from 2019 to 2022, involving more than Rs 4,000 crores, investigated by the Economic Offences Wing.In this scam, there was the manufacturing and sale of illegal liquor through licensed government outlets and the income from those illegal acts was systematically distributed amongst the members of the syndicate and further utilised to unlawfully influence and suborn certain political and administrative functionaries.She was alleged to be involved in monitoring, supervising and accounting for the proceeds of crime, and in facilitating the collection and routing of illicit funds generated from the scam.Chaurasia is already in judicial custody following proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement, which is separate and distinct from the present anticipatory bail application.ArgumentsSenior advocate Siddarth Dave, appearing for Chaurasia, argued that the present case is not merely one of an apprehended arrest but one that strikes at the very constitutional discipline governing arrest, liberty and investigation.Dave further pointed out that his client’s conduct is unimpeachable and has been granted interim bail in multiple independent proceedings, including proceedings before the Supreme Court, with no allegation of misuse of liberty, non-cooperation, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.He also emphasised that the other coaccused, including excise officers, had already been granted protection by the respective court.Also Read | Chhattisgarh High Court gives pre-arrest bail to man in Rs 124 crore GST fraud caseThe state, on the contrary, opposed the plea and argued that it is wholly misconceived, premature and devoid of merit, and has been filed with a view to pre-empt the lawful course of investigation in a grave economic offence having far-reaching ramifications.It was further argued that the complicity of Chaurasia is not “incidental, derivative or merely associative” but is borne out from material collected during the investigation, demonstrating her involvement in monitoring, supervising and accounting (“Hisab”) of proceeds of crime, and in facilitating the collection and routing of illicit funds generated from the scam.Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdTags:Chhattisgarh High Court