Liberty Cannot Be Held Hostage to an Endless Probe: Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Former Chhattisgarh Excise Minister in Liquor Scam Cases

“Indefinite Incarceration Offends Article 21 Even in a Mega Scam, Says the Top Court”, Supreme Court of India, in a reportable order passed by a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, struck a delicate constitutional balance between the State’s right to conduct an unhindered investigation and an individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty.

Supreme Court granted interim bail to a former Excise Minister of Chhattisgarh accused in an alleged State-wide liquor scam, observing that continued incarceration for an uncertain duration cannot be justified merely because the investigation is complex and multi-layered.

The petitioner, Kawasi Lakhma, served as the Excise Minister of Chhattisgarh from 2019 to 2025. An FIR bearing No. 04/2024 was registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC, read with Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner received ₹2 crores per month from an illegal liquor syndicate and played a pivotal role in framing a “tailor-made excise policy” facilitating illicit liquor operations across the State, including strategic postings of excise officials. He was arrested in this case on 02 April 2025.

Parallelly, the Directorate of Enforcement registered ECIR No. RPZO/04/2024 on 11 April 2024, based on substantially the same allegations, and arrested the petitioner on 15 January 2025. Bail pleas before the Trial Court and the High Court failed, prompting the approach to the Supreme Court.

“When Investigation Has No Definite End, Liberty Cannot Be Suspended Indefinitely”

Taking note of the factual matrix, the Supreme Court recorded that seven chargesheets/prosecution complaints had already been filed against 37 accused persons, including the petitioner, while the total number of accused stood at 52, of whom 22 were arrested and 19 released on bail. The prosecution proposed to examine a staggering 864 witnesses, and supplementary chargesheets were still on the anvil.

The Court acknowledged that the alleged scam was large-scale, complex and State-wide, extending beyond Chhattisgarh. At the same time, it emphasised that the petitioner had been in custody since January and April 2025 respectively, and the investigation showed no immediate signs of culmination.

The Bench observed that “any direction by this Court to conclude the investigation in matters having such complex and complicated questions involving several persons can have a cascading and adverse impact on the prosecution case.” However, it added an equally weighty constitutional caveat — “continued incarceration for an uncertain duration may lead to infringement of the right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

“Article 21 Demands a Balance, Not a Blind Endorsement of Custody”

The Court noted that while the prosecution must be granted a free hand and reasonable time in multi-agency investigations, the right to liberty cannot be eclipsed merely because the allegations are grave. It accepted the petitioner’s assurance of cooperation and held that an interim arrangement was warranted on the peculiar facts of the case.

In a clear assertion of bail jurisprudence, the Court held that economic offences, though serious, do not justify incarceration without foreseeable conclusion of trial or investigation, particularly when the accused has already spent a substantial period in custody.

“Strict Conditions to Ensure Fair Investigation While Preserving Liberty”

Granting interim bail in both the ACB and ED cases, the Supreme Court imposed stringent and unprecedented safeguards to ensure that liberty does not derail the investigation. The petitioner was barred from entering the State of Chhattisgarh, except for court appearances, directed to surrender his passport, restrained from contacting or influencing witnesses, and prohibited from making public statements touching the allegations under investigation.

Significantly, the Court clarified that any breach of conditions would amount to misuse of bail, warranting immediate consequences. On the sensitive issue of the petitioner’s participation in the State Legislative Assembly, the Court exercised judicial restraint, observing that “an appropriate decision shall be taken by the learned Speaker,” and expressly declined to express any opinion.

“Interim Bail Is Not an Acquittal, Nor a Comment on Merits”

The Bench was careful to underline that the grant of interim bail “does not amount to an expression of opinion either on the merits of the case or on the entitlement of the petitioner to seek regular bail”. The relief, it clarified, was granted solely in view of the peculiar facts, prolonged custody and constitutional considerations.

By granting interim bail to a former Cabinet Minister accused in a massive liquor scam, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message that constitutional liberty does not dissolve in the face of complex investigations. The order reinforces that Article 21 remains a living guarantee, requiring courts to continuously balance the imperatives of investigation with the human cost of prolonged incarceration.

The decision stands as a significant reaffirmation that even in high-stakes corruption cases, liberty cannot be reduced to a casualty of procedural delay.

Date of Decision: 03 February 2026