Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Calcutta, Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar dismissed the regular bail pleas of two directors of a real estate and investment conglomerate, holding that they were not entitled to release in a money-laundering case. The Court found that the accused did not satisfy the statutory “twin conditions” for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and noted their status as proclaimed offenders, which weighed against grant of bail. The allegations concerned mobilisation of large sums from investors through purported time-share, real estate and gold-linked schemes and the alleged laundering of unaccounted proceeds.

The matter arose from an application seeking regular bail by two accused who were principal directors of a corporate group engaged in time-share, real estate, and gold-based investment activities. The accused were in custody in connection with proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, based on allegations that they had collected large sums from investors through investment schemes. The prosecuting agency alleged that a substantial portion of the collected amount remained unaccounted for and constituted proceeds of crime, which were allegedly layered through multiple entities.

Also Read: Right To Property A Constitutional Right; Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Local Investigation In Encroachment Suit After Finding Local Commissioner Report Vague

The accused contended that they had already facilitated partial refunds to investors and asserted that the present proceedings were not maintainable as they arose from the same predicate offence that was already under investigation earlier. They invoked constitutional protection against double jeopardy and relied on precedents concerning prolonged incarceration, personal liberty, and the right to a speedy trial. Medical grounds were also raised in respect of one of the accused.

The prosecuting agency opposed the bail plea, asserting that the alleged offence was a continuing one involving fresh proceeds of crime, that the statutory conditions for bail were not satisfied, and that the accused had evaded judicial process, thereby posing risks relevant to the grant of bail.

The Court observed that “the protection against Double Jeopardy is triggered only upon the conclusion of a prior trial resulting in conviction or acquittal” and recorded that since the earlier proceedings were still pending, the constitutional bar was not attracted. It stated that “the threshold for a constitutional bar remains unmet”.

The Bench noted that the offence under the money laundering statute is not static and recorded that “the offense of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is not a frozen event but a persistent process”. It further stated that “it continues as long as the accused is involved in any activity connected with the ‘Proceeds of Crime’”. The Court recorded that if fresh illicit funds were generated during the pendency of earlier proceedings, “such acts constitute a distinct cause of action”.

On the statutory requirements for bail, the Court stated that “the ‘Twin Conditions’ under Section 45 of the PMLA are not mere formal hurdles but a statutory command” and recorded that, in view of the unaccounted amount, “we are unable to record a satisfaction that there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe the accused are not guilty”.

The Court further observed that “economic offenses involving public money constitute a ‘class apart’” and noted that such offences require a different judicial approach due to their impact on public interest. With regard to conduct of the accused, the Bench recorded that “the petitioners’ status as ‘Proclaimed Offenders’ deals a decisive blow to their prayer” and that “an accused who ignores judicial warrants disentitles themselves from equitable consideration”.

Addressing the plea based on personal liberty and health, the Court stated that while Article 21 was relevant, “the liberty of an individual cannot be viewed in isolation from the collective interests of thousands of defrauded investors” and recorded that medical needs could be addressed within the custodial framework.

Also Read: Right To Property A Constitutional Right; Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Local Investigation In Encroachment Suit After Finding Local Commissioner Report Vague

The Court recorded that “this is not a fit case for the grant of regular bail” and accordingly ordered that “the prayer for bail is rejected”. The Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings on a day-to-day basis” to ensure that the right to a speedy trial is not compromised. “The Enforcement Directorate is specifically directed to ensure the production of its witnesses on every scheduled date without fail, ensuring no unnecessary adjournments are sought”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Misha Rahotgi Mohta, Advocate; Ms. Shahina Haque, Advocate; Mr. Amulya Upadhyay, Advocate; Ms. Ayesha Hussain, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti, Advocate; Mr. Debsoumya Basak, Advocate; Ms. Swati Kumari Singh, Advocate

Case Title: Basudeb Bagchi & Anr. v. Enforcement Directorate
Case Number: CRM (M) 932 of 2025 with CRAN 1 of 2025
Bench: Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, Justice Uday Kumar