The Supreme Court granted interim bail to former Chhattisgarh minister Kawasi Lakhma, citing long custody, lack of money trail, and a trial involving over 1,100 witnesses. The Court imposed strict conditions, including a ban on entering Chhattisgarh except for court hearings and restrictions on public statements.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday heard a plea seeking interim bail for Kawasi Lakhma, a six-time MLA and former minister from a tribal area of Chhattisgarh, in connection with alleged liquor scam cases being probed by the Enforcement Directorate and the Economic Offences Wing.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M Pancholi.
Appearing for Lakhma, senior counsel began submissions by highlighting only a few facts which, according to him, were crucial for the grant of bail. He told the Court,
“So only three, four facts I want to state, my Lord, which should be relevant for bail.”
The counsel submitted that the petitioner was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on January 15, 2025, and later by another agency on April 2, 2025. He pointed out that multiple supplementary charge sheets had already been filed in both cases.
He also stated that the Economic Offences Wing had later arrested the petitioner, and that he had already spent nearly 13 months and 10 months, respectively, in custody in different cases.
It was argued that investigations, as far as the petitioner was concerned, were already complete. The counsel informed the Bench that there are a total of 52 accused persons in the case and as many as 1,193 witnesses proposed to be examined. Out of the 52 accused, 22 have been arrested, while several others have been charge-sheeted without arrest.
The counsel further submitted that the Supreme Court itself had earlier granted interim bail to other accused, including distillery owners. Stressing the lack of evidence against Lakhma, he said there had been no recovery of money and no evidence of any illegal trade.
According to him, the allegations were based on claims that money was used for construction of a house or a party office, and the entire case relied mainly on statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including statements of domestic staff, drivers, books of accounts, and confessions of co-accused. He asserted that there was no independent material to prove any wrongdoing.
The hearing was briefly adjourned for lunch and resumed thereafter. Continuing his arguments, counsel reiterated that there was no money trail and no recovery, stating that the prosecution’s case was substantially based on a single statement under Section 161 CrPC.
At this stage, the Chief Justice asked,
“any further remand?”
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh, then began his submissions. He relied on an affidavit filed by the State and submitted that remand had indeed been granted earlier and extended periodically. He argued that the offences alleged were serious in nature and claimed that the individual had received money.
Senior Advocate Jethmalani also submitted that the petitioner’s alleged non-cooperation during investigation had been captured on camera. This allegation was immediately denied by counsel appearing for Kawasi Lakhma.
Thereafter, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju appeared for the Enforcement Directorate and advanced submissions on behalf of the central agency. During the hearing, Justice Bagchi asked,
“What is the value of assets attached?”
In response, the ASG stated that the individual had received ₹72 crores, that the total scam amounted to ₹2,000 crores, and that the money was spent on constructing buildings.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Lakhma, countered this claim and said,
“He says he got ₹72 crores from the OSD, and the OSD isn’t even an accused.”
The Chief Justice then noted the prosecution’s allegations and observed,
“It is alleged that the petitioner was paid ₹50 lakhs per month from the sale proceeds of illegally manufactured liquor by the syndicate.”
The Court further recorded the allegation that the petitioner’s role and patronage were significant in shaping policies that facilitated the illegal liquor operations of the PLS syndicate. It was also alleged that posting of preferred excise officers at strategic locations was done at the petitioner’s instance, which was cited as another incriminating circumstance.
After considering the submissions, the Chief Justice made detailed observations on custody and trial delay. He noted that the petitioner had been in custody from January 5, 2025, to April 2, 2025. He further observed that out of 52 accused persons, 22 had been arrested and 19 had already been granted bail.
Taking note of the scale of the alleged scam and the number of witnesses, the Chief Justice stated that the case involved widespread allegations affecting the state and other parts of the country, with 1,193 witnesses proposed by the prosecution. He observed that the investigation was expected to take a long time due to the complexity of the matter, and that a hurried trial could adversely affect the prosecution’s case.
In view of these factors, the Supreme Court ordered that the petitioner be granted interim bail in both the Enforcement Directorate and Economic Offences Wing cases.
The Court directed that bail bonds be furnished to the satisfaction of the special judge. It imposed strict conditions, including a direction that the petitioner shall not enter the State of Chhattisgarh except for attending court hearings, for which he must arrive a day in advance.
The Court also clarified that the petitioner would not be exempted from personal appearance except on medical grounds, would not be permitted to travel abroad, and must surrender his passport before the special judge.
The Chief Justice further directed,
“1. Phone number disclosure: The petitioner must provide his phone number to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and it cannot be altered without informing the trial court. Regarding his attendance at assembly proceedings, a decision must be taken by the Speaker of the Assembly before the chargesheet is filed and cognizance is taken.”
The Court also laid down additional conditions, stating,
“2. Public events: The petitioner is allowed to participate in public events, but he shall not make any statement regarding the allegations he faces.”
Lastly, the Bench cautioned the petitioner,
“3. Evidence & witnesses: The petitioner must not make any direct or indirect attempt to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Breach of these conditions will be treated as a breach of the bail order.”
The matter will continue to be monitored as the investigation progresses.
Case Title:
Kawasi Lakhma vs State of Chhattisgarh, SLP (Crl) No. 16980/2025
Click Here to Read More Reports On Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
