Supreme Court seeks ED response to third bail plea of ex-secretary of Bhupesh Baghel

The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to a bail plea filed by suspended bureaucrat Saumya Chaurasia in connection with a money-laundering case [Saumya Chaurasia vs Directorate of Enforcement]..Chaurasia was earlier the Deputy Secretary of former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel.This is the third time Chaurasia is seeking bail in the matter. .A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan listed the matter next on September 20.Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave with advocates Pallavi Sharma and Harshwardhan Parganiha appeared for Chaurasia..The Court was hearing the appeal against the Chhattisgarh High Court's August 28 order rejecting the third bail plea of Chaurasia, who has been in jail since December 2022..The money-laundering case filed against Chaurasia was related to a coal scam case in Chhattisgarh. The coal scam involved allegations of extortion and collection of illegal levies for coal mining and transport in the State.According to ED, the amount so scammed was ₹500 crore in 16 months, with the money allegedly being used to fund polls and for various bribes.It is the central agency's case that the funds were used by Chaurasia to purchase benami assets to benefit the coal mafia in connivance with State government officials. Further, she allegedly exerted pressure on fellow officers to comply using her position in the Chief Minister's office.Chaurasia, on the other hand, contended that there was no concrete evidence of her involvement in the alleged scam, and that no recovery of money has been made from her till date..On December 14 last year, the top court had denied bail to Chaurasia. It had also imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on Chaurasia after finding that certain facts were wrongly stated in her petition.The fact in question was that the chargesheet had been filed after the judgment had been reserved, even as the petition before the Supreme Court argued that the chargesheet had not been considered.The Court had noted that the petition submitted that the scheduled offences of criminal conspiracy and extortion had been dropped from the chargesheet. It had said that the conduct amounted to a bold attempt to misrepresent facts.