La Corte Suprema di Chhattisgarh concede sollievo a Bhupesh Baghel nel caso di morphed CD

The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday, July 30, 2026, issued an interim order staying further proceedings against former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel in a case involving a morphed CD allegedly containing an obscene video of BJP MLA Rajesh Munat. The decision came as part of Mr. Baghel's challenge to a January 24, 2026, order by the Special Judge (CBI) in Raipur, which overturned a prior discharge and directed that charges be framed against him. The order was delivered by Justice Radhakishan Agrawal during hearings represented by lawyer Harshwardhan Pargania, who stated that the court had accepted the argument that allowing the trial to proceed would render the current petition ineffective. The case traces back nearly nine years, originating in 2017 when it was alleged that a morphed obscene video of then minister Rajesh Munat was created and circulated to harm his reputation. Mr. Baghel, along with several others, was implicated in the incident. The probe began with a complaint filed by Mr. Munat and was later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI). In 2018, the investigation was ongoing when Rinku Khanuja, an automobile dealer based in Raipur, took his own life. His death occurred amid the continuing inquiry into the case. By 2025, the CBI had filed a charge sheet against Mr. Baghel and other accused individuals, citing offenses under Sections 469, 471, 120B, and 67A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Information Technology Act. However, in March 2025, a special judicial magistrate discharged Mr. Baghel, concluding that there was insufficient prima facie evidence connecting him to the alleged conspiracy or circulation of the video. This order was subsequently annulled by the Special Judge (CBI) in January 2026, directing that charges be framed against Mr. Baghel. Mr. Baghel challenged this reversal through the High Court, arguing that the CBI court had overstepped its authority by altering the nature of the charges against him. He emphasized that only a trial court has the power to make such determinations at the proper stage of proceedings. Furthermore, he asserted that a higher court should intervene in a discharge order only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the order is clearly illegal or lacks evidentiary support. The CBI, opposing the petition, contended that the revisional court had correctly overturned the discharge order after reviewing the available materials. It questioned the validity of Mr. Baghel’s petition and suggested that the High Court should not interfere with the ruling. During the proceedings, Mr. Pargania noted that Mr. Baghel also argued that the prosecution’s evidence did not establish a “grave suspicion” necessary for framing charges. Taking these arguments into account, the High Court decided to stay all further proceedings before the trial court until the petition is resolved. This decision underscores the complex legal landscape surrounding the case, highlighting the tensions between different levels of judicial review and the implications for the accused. As the matter moves forward, the outcome will likely have broader implications for how similar cases are handled within the judiciary.