ED alleges former CM's son Chaitanya Baghel laundered Rs 16.70 cr in liquor scam, Bhupesh Baghel slams ED, announces economic blockade
In a stunning escalation of the ongoing liquor scam probe in Chhattisgarh, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has alleged in its remand report that Chaitanya Baghel, son of former Chief Minister
Bhupesh Baghel
, laundered Rs 16.70 crore in the proceeds of crime through two shell companies and under-invoiced real estate ventures.
The illicit funds were part of a broader proceeds-of-crime pool generated by a powerful liquor syndicate that allegedly rigged the state's excise system between 2019 and 2022. The agency claims Chaitanya played a 'central and active' role in routing illegal cash through dubious transactions, including funnelling ₹5 crore from M/s Saheli Jewellers into a real estate project 'Vitthal Green' developed under M/s Baghel Developers.
While official records showed a project cost of Rs 7.14 crore, ED investigators believe the actual expenditure was Rs 13–15 crore, with a significant portion paid in unaccounted cash.
These funds, the agency claims, were part of a massive proceeds-of-crime pool worth over Rs 3100 crore, generated by a deeply entrenched liquor syndicate that systematically manipulated the state's excise department between 2019 and 2022.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Many Are Watching Tariffs - Few Are Watching What Nvidia Just Launched
Seeking Alpha
Read More
Undo
The ED arrested Chaitanya on Friday under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and secured five-day custodial remand from a special PMLA court in Raipur. His arrest came amid fresh raids at his residence in Bhilai on the morning of his 38th birthday.
ED produced a detailed remand application in a special court of Special Judge (PMLA) in Raipur on Friday, and the court granted his custodial remand to ED till July 22.
The remand copy was released late in the evening.
Amid sharp criticism from the opposition
Congress
against BJP govt and the federal agency, Chief minister Vishnu Deo Sai said, 'ED doesn't act randomly against anyone and it knows what it's doing.'
'A key witness connected to the project Pappu Bansal confirmed the under-invoicing and said that only Rs 2.62 crore was recorded in payments to the contractor, while an additional Rs 4.2 crore was allegedly paid in cash, money that ED says originated from the liquor scam,' ED further revealed that on a single day—October 19, 2020—liquor businessman Trilok Singh Dhillon paid Rs 5 crore for 19 flats in the same project, using names of his employees.
This too has been flagged as part of the laundering chain.
The Liquor Syndicate's Modus Operandi
The liquor scam, currently being called one of Chhattisgarh's largest corruption scandals, was formally uncovered after the BJP returned to power in the 2023 Assembly elections. An FIR was lodged by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on January 17, 2024, naming 70 individuals and entities including top bureaucrats, liquor distributors, and political figures.
The ED has broken the scam down into three core components: Procurement Scam- Liquor distilleries paid commissions of Rs 75 per case to receive preferential treatment from the state-run Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Ltd (CSMCL), parallel black market- a massive supply of unaccounted 'kacha' liquor using duplicate holograms bypassed official warehouses, fetching up to Rs 3,000 per case, FL-10A licensing racket-wholesale licenses were allegedly sold to foreign liquor distributors in exchange for kickbacks, allowing syndicate members to claim up to 60% of the profits.
The manipulation, ED alleges, was facilitated by placing loyal officials in key departments and allowing the syndicate to control tenders, policy decisions, and staff appointments in the Excise Department.
A Network of Names and Money
The ED's case hinges on testimonies and digital evidence linking Chaitanya Baghel to the syndicate's financial web. Laxmi Narayan Bansal, alias Pappu—believed to be a key money handler—admitted in his statement to laundering over Rs 1,000 crore in cash in coordination with Chaitanya.
He claimed to have received Rs 136 crore in three months, based on encrypted messages retrieved from the phone of Anwar Dhebar, a key middleman, and brother of ex-Congress mayor.
Bansal also told the ED that he delivered huge cash amounts to Congress leader Ram Gopal Agrawal and excise officer KK Srivastava on Chaitanya's instructions Rs 80–100 crore in one instance alone. He also routed payments through Dipen Chawda, linking the financial trail back to ground-level liquor operations.
Custody Justified, Says ED
The agency argued in court that Chaitanya was non-cooperative during interrogation, refusing to disclose key details about the movement and utilization of funds. His custodial interrogation, the ED said, was vital to confront him with co-accused individuals, corroborate financial data, and trace the full extent of money laundering. The remand was granted by the Special Judge (PMLA) after the ED assured adherence to Supreme Court directives regarding the arrest procedure.
The ED has so far attached properties worth over Rs 205 crore in connection with this case.
While the ED's first ECIR in this case, based on an Income Tax complaint, was quashed by the Supreme Court in early 2024, the agency revived its probe after the EOW's FIR in January. Since then, multiple high-profile individuals have been arrested, including former excise minister Kawasi Lakhma, telecom officer Arun Pati Tripathi, liquor distributor Anwar Dhebar, and retired IAS officer Anil Tuteja.
Chaitanya Baghel will remain in ED custody until July 22 as the probe deepens into what is increasingly being viewed as a high-level financial and political scandal that could have wide-ranging implications for the state's political landscape.
'This fight is not about saving Congress leaders, it's about saving Chhattisgarh,' reacted former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel on Saturday, as the Chhattisgarh Congress announced a statewide economic blockade on July 22 to protest against ED arrest of his son.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
7 minutes ago
- India Today
NIA attaches D-Company operative's properties in Gujarat BJP leaders' murder case
Anti-terror agency National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Friday said it has attached two properties belonging to Mohammad Yunus, an alleged member of the Pakistan-based D-Company gang, in connection with the 2015 double murder of BJP workers in Bharuch, a major crackdown on D-Company's operations in India, properties located in Bharuch city were attached under Section 33(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, based on a recent order by the NIA Special Court in Ahmedabad in connection with the double murder attached properties include a residential house in Ward No. 3, City Survey No. 3614 and a property in City Survey No. 3615, covering a total area of 174 square metres," NIA said in a statement. Yunus, also known as Manjro, was arrested for his alleged involvement in the conspiracy and murder of BJP workers Shirish Bengali and Pragnesh Mistry. Former BJP president of Bharuch and senior RSS member Bangali and general secretary of Bharatiya Janta Yuva Morcha Mistry were shot dead in the district on November 2, 2015.- EndsMust Watch
The Hindu
7 minutes ago
- The Hindu
House of wars: on Parliament, Operation Sindoor discussion
The government and the Opposition crossed swords in Parliament during a discussion on Operation Sindoor this week. There was unanimity in praising India's armed forces, but there was little common ground beyond that. Operation Sindoor was India's military response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives. The elimination of three terrorists behind the attack, just before the parliamentary debate, helped the government's case. It told Parliament that these terrorists were Lashkar-e-Taiba members from Pakistan. The Narendra Modi government's strident approach seeks to change the behaviour of Pakistan and reassure its domestic audience. The success of this approach is debatable and the Opposition sought to put the government on the spot on both counts. A demonstrated willingness to use force against Pakistan in the event of a terrorism incident is a definitive turn in India's strategy, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) takes pride in that. But there is no evidence yet that it is working though there has been chest thumping around it by the ruling party. The discussion in Parliament barely addressed the implications of this approach, which is being touted as the new normal. The Opposition and the government agreed on the need to punish Pakistan, and also disagreed on who would do it better. The government claimed success in meeting its objectives of launching a military operation and denied that it had acted under pressure in ending the war. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi demanded a pointed response to repeated claims by U.S. President Donald Trump that he mediated the ceasefire but the Prime Minister evaded a direct response on it. The government contradicts itself when it says that the operation was a success, and that it is continuing. It is also exasperating to hear a party that is now in its eleventh year of uninterrupted power, blame people who passed away decades ago for any challenge that India faces now. There was little self-reflection regarding the lapses that led to the terrorism incident, and whether and how the government plans to address them. The government had sent joint teams including several MPs from the Opposition abroad to garner support for India in the aftermath of the operation, but that sign of statesmanship was a short-lived aberration, as it turns out. The world is changing rapidly and India's capacity to navigate those changes will be largely determined by its own character. Questioning the patriotism of political opponents is an easy route to take to evade tough questions, but the BJP must realise that such an approach has diminishing returns.
The Hindu
7 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Delhi court dismisses defamation case filed by AAP's Satyendra Jain against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj
A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Kumar Jain in a defamation case against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Bansuri Swaraj, citing that merely repeating information already in the public domain does not amount to defamation. The court also criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had initially posted on X the information shared by the BJP MP, saying that the central agency holds the responsibility of sharing only accurate and non-misleading information with the public. Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts observed that sufficient ground does not exist for taking cognisance of the offence as defined and punishable under Section 356 of the BNS. The case filed by Mr. Jain is based on 'defamatory' comments about him during a television interview by Ms. Swaraj. The AAP leader stated that during the interview, Ms. Swaraj allegedly claimed that ₹3 crore in cash, 1.8 kilograms of gold, and 133 gold coins were recovered from the AAP leader's house. The ED also shared this information on its social media handle. Mr. Jain alleged that the statement made on TV had damaged his reputation. Mr. Jain had challenged a trial court order that rejected his criminal defamation complaint against the BJP MP earlier this year. In a strongly worded message, the court said that it is incumbent upon an investigative agency such as the ED to act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process. 'Any dissemination of information, including but not limited to official social media platforms, must be accurate, non-misleading, and free from sensationalism,' the court said. 'The presentation of facts in a manner that is misleading, scandalous, or inten to defame or politically prejudice an individual would not only undermine the integrity of the agency but may also amount to an abuse of power and violation of the individual's fundamental rights, including the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution,' it said. While dismissing the defamation case, the court added that there was no 'willful misrepresentation or malicious intent' of the accused, hence Ms. Swaraj cannot be held liable for the alleged offence of defamation. 'If at all any statement is perceived as defamatory, the liability, if any, would lie with the source agency, i.e., the ED, which originally disseminated the information. The proposed accused, being a secondary communicator of officially released material, cannot be fastened with criminal liability, especially in the absence of intent to harm the reputation of the Complainant,' it added.
