Chhattisgarh HC dismisses plea of accused who tried to evade arrest by planning Brazil trip in Rs 2,161 crore liquor scam
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the arrest warrant issued against Vijay Kumar Bhatia, an accused in the alleged Rs 2,161 crore liquor scam case. Bhatia had sought to quash the warrant issued on 16 May 2025, by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raipur, and declare his arrest illegal.
Referring to Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court reiterated that a Magistrate can issue a warrant of arrest against an accused who has committed a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest, even during the investigation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, in its order on 26 June 2025, observed that Bhatia's conduct was important, noting that he had planned to travel to Brazil on 30 May 2025, after the arrest warrant was issued. The court stated this "prima facie shows that the petitioner was aware that he could be arrested at any point of time and by leaving the country, he was trying to evade his arrest and had no intentions to cooperate with the investigation."
Bhatia, a resident of Nehru Nagar East, Bhilai, is accused of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, all of which are non-bailable. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had also issued a lookout notice against him in connection with the scam.
Senior counsel Meenakshi Arora, appearing for Bhatia, argued that he was not named in the three charge sheets filed by the State. She initially contended that a non-bailable warrant was issued, but later corrected herself, admitting that it was a warrant of arrest issued to secure his presence. She also stated that Bhatia was never summoned for 1.5 years after the First Information Report (FIR) was registered, so there was no occasion for him to seek a protective order.
Additional Advocate General Vivek Sharma, representing the State, and Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, counsel for the ED, opposed the petition. They submitted that Bhatia is named at serial number 43 in the list of accused in the FIR and the investigation is ongoing. They further stated that more than 300 witnesses have been examined and two supplementary charge sheets have been filed after the initial one.
The court noted that Bhatia was arrested on 1 June 2025, and his regular bail application was rejected by the trial court on 20 June 2025. He is currently in judicial custody.
The court also cited the Supreme Court's observation in State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar & Others, which affirms the Magistrate's power to issue warrants during investigation to apprehend those evading arrest.
The court concluded that the reasons assigned by the Additional Sessions Judge for issuing the warrant were "just and proper and reasons are well merited," finding no grounds for interference. The petition was dismissed, with the court stating that Bhatia is at liberty to seek regular bail if he is aggrieved by the trial court's rejection of his previous bail application.
Referring to Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court reiterated that a Magistrate can issue a warrant of arrest against an accused who has committed a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest, even during the investigation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, in its order on 26 June 2025, observed that Bhatia's conduct was important, noting that he had planned to travel to Brazil on 30 May 2025, after the arrest warrant was issued. The court stated this "prima facie shows that the petitioner was aware that he could be arrested at any point of time and by leaving the country, he was trying to evade his arrest and had no intentions to cooperate with the investigation."
Bhatia, a resident of Nehru Nagar East, Bhilai, is accused of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, all of which are non-bailable. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had also issued a lookout notice against him in connection with the scam.
Senior counsel Meenakshi Arora, appearing for Bhatia, argued that he was not named in the three charge sheets filed by the State. She initially contended that a non-bailable warrant was issued, but later corrected herself, admitting that it was a warrant of arrest issued to secure his presence. She also stated that Bhatia was never summoned for 1.5 years after the First Information Report (FIR) was registered, so there was no occasion for him to seek a protective order.
Additional Advocate General Vivek Sharma, representing the State, and Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, counsel for the ED, opposed the petition. They submitted that Bhatia is named at serial number 43 in the list of accused in the FIR and the investigation is ongoing. They further stated that more than 300 witnesses have been examined and two supplementary charge sheets have been filed after the initial one.
The court noted that Bhatia was arrested on 1 June 2025, and his regular bail application was rejected by the trial court on 20 June 2025. He is currently in judicial custody.
The court also cited the Supreme Court's observation in State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar & Others, which affirms the Magistrate's power to issue warrants during investigation to apprehend those evading arrest.
The court concluded that the reasons assigned by the Additional Sessions Judge for issuing the warrant were "just and proper and reasons are well merited," finding no grounds for interference. The petition was dismissed, with the court stating that Bhatia is at liberty to seek regular bail if he is aggrieved by the trial court's rejection of his previous bail application.
Next Story