Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Congress Ex-MLA And Former Excise Minister Kawasi Lakhma In Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam Case

The Supreme Court has granted interim bail to senior tribal leader and Ex- MLA Kawasi Lakhma in connection with the multi-crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam after a year of incarceration following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on January 15, 2025, and subsequently by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) on April 2, 2025. 

The case involves parallel investigations by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). While the prosecution alleged a massive corruption ring involving kickbacks and illicit liquor manufacturing, the Court found it necessary to balance the state’s right to an "unhindered investigation" with the petitioner’s fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered, "On one hand, thus, is the right of the prosecution to have an uninterrupted, fair and free right to proceed with the ongoing investigation; on the other hand, there is the right of the Petitioner to seek liberty. It is urged on his behalf, to the same extent, that he has already spent a year in custody, he is ready and willing to continue the cooperation, and that indefinite incarceration may lead to a violation of the right flowing from Article 21...In order to balance the competitive claims asserted by both sides, and with a view to strike a balance, we deem it appropriate to issue the following interim directions at this stage, subject to the modifications if so required in future: i. Petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail in both ED and EoW cases, ii. He shall be required to furnish the bail bonds before the Special Judge...In addition to the conditions imposed by the Judge, the Petitioner shall not enter the state of Chhattisgarh except for attending the Court...iii. He shall not be granted Exemption from attending courts except on health grounds...iv) The Petitioner shall not travel abroad, and the  passport shall be submitted to the Special Judge..."

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Kawasi Lakhma, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethlamalani appeared for the State, and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Directorate of Enforcement.

The Court further ordered that the petitioner is required to disclose his exact place of residence and provide a valid contact number to both the jurisdictional police station and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to ensure his whereabouts can be verified at any time. The petitioner must furnish his mobile number to the court and is strictly prohibited from changing it without obtaining prior permission from the Special Judge.

Regarding the Petitioner’s attendance at Legislative Assembly sessions during the pendency of the chargesheet or the cognizance of the case, the authority to decide on his participation rests solely with the Speaker of the State Assembly. The Court expressly declines to interfere in the matter.

Lakhma is prohibited from making any public comments or statements concerning the allegations currently under investigation or contained in the chargesheet.

The Court ordered that breach of any of the conditions shall be taken as a misuse of the concession of bail, warranting necessary consequences.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Lakhma, argued that the investigation against his client was largely complete and that the case rested on the statements of domestic staff rather than "intrinsic material" or a clear money trail. Rohatgi highlighted a significant disparity in the treatment of the accused, noting that 19 out of 52 individuals involved had already been granted bail. He emphasized that with over 800 witnesses and nearly 40 accused yet to be fully processed, a trial was not likely to commence or conclude in the foreseeable future.

Per Contra, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said that Lakhma is a central figure in a scam that allegedly siphoned ₹220 crores from the state exchequer. The prosecution alleged that Lakhma received kickbacks amounting to approximately ₹2 crores per month, totalling ₹72 crores, which were purportedly used to construct real estate assets and fund political activities. They argued that the "grave nature" of the offence and the ongoing need to trace absconding co-accused necessitated continued custody to prevent the tampering of digital and oral evidence.

The Court remarked that while the prosecution requires a reasonable time for such a massive probe, the petitioner’s "indefinite incarceration" would partially infringe upon his constitutional rights. 

Cause Title: Kawasi Lakhma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh [SLP (Crl.) No. 16980/2025]