Court Upholds Enforcement Directorate's Stand on Ongoing Investigation and Emergence of New Evidence, Citing Failure to Meet Bail Conditions under PMLA Section 45
In a significant ruling dated October 13, 2026, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the bail application of Sujit Bose, former Minister of West Bengal and ex-Vice-Chairman of South Dum Dum Municipality, in a money laundering case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The judgment was delivered by Justice Tirthankar Ghosh in a case arising out of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) related to a municipal recruitment scam.
The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. Sujit Bose contended that he was not named in the predicate FIR or charge-sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), cooperated fully with the investigation, and that his arrest nearly three years after the registration of the ECIR lacked necessity. The petitioner argued that the delay in taking coercive action showed no genuine custodial need and highlighted that the evidence against him was documentary and already in the ED's possession.
The Enforcement Directorate, represented by senior legal officers including the Additional Solicitor General, presented a detailed case alleging that Sujit Bose was involved in laundering proceeds of crime amounting to approximately Rs. 20.40 crore. The investigation revealed a complex web of illegal recruitment activities in the South Dum Dum Municipality, wherein Bose allegedly recommended undeserving candidates for municipal jobs. Key witnesses and digital evidence seized from co-accused persons implicated the petitioner in orchestrating illegal appointments and receiving illicit benefits.
The ED also pointed to suspicious real estate transactions, cash deposits through family-controlled hospitality businesses, sham shareholding transfers, fictitious unsecured loans, and structured payments to Sujit Bose and his children as mechanisms for layering and disguising the illicit proceeds as legitimate income. Further, the petitioner was accused of suppressing investments in his election affidavit, strengthening the case for deliberate concealment of assets.
Justice Ghosh's detailed analysis acknowledged the petitioner's arguments regarding delay and lack of direct naming in the initial FIR but emphasized that the investigation was still at a crucial stage. The Court noted that while in custody, the petitioner's immovable assets numbering around 45 surfaced, and valuation processes were underway. Moreover, information about the petitioner's alleged role in illegal recruitments was shared with the CBI, which had commenced further inquiry.
The Court underscored the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA - the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. It held that the petitioner failed to meet these stringent requirements, and mere filing of a prosecution complaint or cognizance by the court was insufficient to justify bail. The ruling reiterated the Supreme Court's position that money laundering is a serious economic offence necessitating careful scrutiny before granting bail.
Rejecting the bail plea, the Court observed that the petitioner's influence and the ongoing investigation's vital phase warranted custodial detention. The Court also found the grounds of arrest and reasons to believe to be identical, which the petitioner argued indicated non-application of mind; however, the Court gave due weight to the complex nature of the case and the emerging evidence.
This judgment affirms the rigorous approach Indian courts are adopting towards bail in money laundering cases under the PMLA, especially where investigations reveal substantial evidence of ongoing criminal activity and risk of witness tampering or evidence destruction. The Court's decision highlights the importance of balancing individual liberty with the need to ensure the integrity of investigations into economic offences that have far-reaching implications for governance and public trust.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Bail - Though petitioner was not named in predicate FIR/charge-sheet and contended that arrest after about three years showed absence of necessity, bail was refused as Court found ongoing investigation at a vital stage, fresh immovable assets had surfaced during custody, information had been shared with CBI for further investigation, and petitioner failed to satisfy twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA.
Statutory provision(s):
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Sections 3, 19, 45; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Sujit Bose v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996297
