Back
Relief for Former Excise Chief: Supreme Court Grants in Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam
In a significant legal development, the has granted to Niranjan Das, the former Excise Commissioner of Chhattisgarh, in connection with ongoing and investigations related to the state’s high-profile liquor scam. The bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, weighed the petitioner’s period of incarceration against the status of the investigation and the likelihood of a protracted trial.
Unraveling the Allegations The case against Das stems from FIR No. 04/2024, registered by the & in Raipur. He faces charges under the —specifically Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B—alongside the . Simultaneously, the () initiated proceedings under the for his alleged role as an "orchestrator" or "kingpin" in formulating policies that favored certain interests, causing significant losses to the state exchequer.
Legal Contentions and Court's Assessment The petitioner sought enlargement on , emphasizing that he had been in custody since September (for the case) and December (for the PMLA case) of 2025. His legal counsel highlighted that the investigation regarding the petitioner, in both matters, had concluded with and already filed.
Critically, the Court observed an element of parity, noting that eight out of nine in the PMLA case had already been granted . The bench highlighted that while the roles of the accused were central to the probe, the judiciary must also contemplate the logistical realities of the criminal justice system.
Key Observations The Supreme Court’s reasoning hinged on the pragmatic assessment of trial timelines. The bench remarked:
"The trial, however, is yet to formally commence, and its conclusion will take some time."
Regarding the PMLA aspect, the Court further noted:
"We find the list of witnesses and the documents that are likely to be placed for consideration of the Special Judge, and that the conclusion of the trial will take a reasonable long time."
Addressing the broader balancing act required in such cases, the court stated:
"Keeping in view the period already spent in custody, the fact that the have already been released on and that the conclusion of the trial will take some time... we direct the release of the petitioner on ."
Implications of the Verdict
By granting
, the Court has not acquitted the petitioner of the allegations, as the final order explicitly states it is passing the directive
"without expressing any opinion on the merits."
The release is strictly contingent upon terms and conditions that mirror those imposed on the
during their own releases.
This decision serves as a pivotal reminder of the judicial principle that cannot be transformed into , especially when investigations are complete and the trial is unlikely to conclude in a timely manner. As the liquor scam case continues to unfold, this order highlights the Court's insistence on consistency for parties and the necessity of judicial efficiency in high-stakes matters.
Case Reference:
