Calcutta High Court: In a bail application filed under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), read with Section 45, Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), in connection with the alleged municipal recruitment scam in West Bengal, a Single Judge Bench of Tirthankar Ghosh, J., rejected the bail plea of Sujit Bose, former Minister of State and former Vice-Chairman of South Dum Dum Municipality. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to overcome the rigours of Section 45 PMLA. Taking note of the ongoing investigation, the tracing of approximately 45 immovable properties belonging to the petitioner and his family, and the further investigation initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage.
Background
The petitioner is a former Minister of the Government of West Bengal and former Vice-Chairman of South Dum Dum Municipality. The proceedings arose out of an alleged municipal recruitment scam in West Bengal. The investigation into the predicate offence commenced pursuant to an order dated 21-4-2023 passed by the Calcutta High Court directing the CBI to register an FIR. Accordingly, the CBI registered FIR on 22-4-2023 against Ayan Sil, ABS Infozone and unknown public servants. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) subsequently registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on 11-5-2023 to investigate the alleged offence of money laundering.
According to the petitioner, the CBI, after conducting an investigation for nearly three years, filed its main charge-sheet on 30-6-2024 and a supplementary charge-sheet on 30-12-2024 without naming him as an accused. The petitioner contended that he was neither summoned nor interrogated by the CBI during the investigation into the predicate offence.
According to the petitioner, the ED issued its first summons to the petitioner in April 2026. After appearing before the ED and having his statement recorded on 1-5-2026, the petitioner appeared again on 11-5-2026 pursuant to a further summons and was subsequently arrested. He challenged his continued detention, contending that the ED had initiated coercive action nearly three years after registering the ECIR and that the delay undermined the necessity for his arrest.
The ED opposed the bail application, alleging that the petitioner had participated in the illegal municipal recruitment process and had subsequently laundered the proceeds of crime through personal accounts, family members and entities allegedly controlled by him. The prosecution relied on digital records containing lists of candidates allegedly recommended by the petitioner, statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA, property transactions, cash deposits in hospitality businesses, shareholding arrangements and payments allegedly made without corresponding services.
The ED alleged that approximately ₹20.40 crore in proceeds of crime had been identified in the investigation. It further contended that the petitioner had acquired immovable properties on allegedly favourable terms from persons connected with municipal appointments, routed unaccounted funds through hospitality establishments, transferred shareholdings to his children and received payments under arrangements allegedly unsupported by genuine commercial services.
The petitioner disputed these allegations, arguing that no proceeds of crime had been directly traced to him and that the transactions relied upon by the ED were ordinary business and property dealings. He also contended that the grounds of arrest and the recorded reasons to believe were verbatim identical, demonstrating an alleged lack of independent application of mind. According to him, the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA could not be invoked without first establishing the foundational facts connecting him with a scheduled offence and identifiable proceeds of crime.
The ED, on the other hand, maintained that the material collected during the investigation established the petitioner’s alleged role in the recruitment scam and the subsequent laundering of its proceeds. It further argued that his influence and connections with persons who were beneficiaries of the alleged illegal appointments created a real possibility of witnesses being influenced or evidence being tampered with if he were released on bail.
Analysis and Decision
The Court considered the rival submissions concerning the petitioner’s alleged role in the municipal recruitment scam, the material collected during the money-laundering investigation, the necessity for continued detention and the applicability of the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA.
The petitioner relied on the fact that the CBI had not named him in its main or supplementary charge sheets despite investigating the predicate offence for nearly three years. He argued that the ED could not enlarge the CBI’s case of 29 illegal appointments into an allegation concerning 150 candidates without independent and cogent material.. He also submitted that he was not a member of the relevant Selection Committee and that no specific financial trail connected him with money received from candidates in exchange for appointments.
The ED countered that its investigation had uncovered additional material concerning candidates allegedly recommended by the petitioner. It relied on digital records seized including an excel sheet which allegedly identified the petitioner as the recommending authority for several candidates who were subsequently appointed in South Dum Dum Municipality. The ED also relied on statements concerning the petitioner’s alleged influence over the recruitment process.
The Court also considered the ED’s allegations concerning the acquisition of flats from Ganpati Developers for allegedly inadequate consideration, cash deposits aggregating to approximately ₹8.09 crore in accounts associated with hospitality businesses, shareholding transfers followed by unsecured loans, and payments allegedly made to the petitioner and his children without corresponding services. These circumstances formed part of the prosecution case that the proceeds allegedly generated through illegal municipal recruitment had been layered and projected as legitimate income.
The petitioner disputed the evidentiary significance of these transactions and maintained that the prosecution had failed to establish a direct nexus between the alleged illegal appointments and the funds or assets attributed to him. He further contended that the ED’s allegations could not, by themselves, displace the requirement of establishing the foundational facts necessary for invoking Section 45 PMLA.
The Court, however, found some force in the ED’s submissions concerning the continuing investigation and the justification for custody. Although the supplementary prosecution complaint stated that investigation qua the petitioner was complete, the Court noted that, while he was in custody in August—September 2026, the ED had traced approximately 45 immovable properties belonging to him and his family members through certified copies of title deeds obtained from the offices of the Additional District Sub-Registrars. It noted that during August and September 2026, while the petitioner was in custody, the ED traced approximately 45 immovable properties belonging to the petitioner and his family members through certified copies of title deeds obtained from the offices of the Additional District Sub-Registrars. The registered valuers had been engaged to assess the market value of these properties, and their reports were awaited.
The Court further noted that information had been shared with the CBI under Section 66(2) PMLA concerning candidates allegedly recommended by the petitioner for municipal employment. Following the receipt of this information, the CBI had commenced further investigation after informing the jurisdictional Special Court. The ED had also identified other sources of funds during the examination of material witnesses.
The Court took note of the supplementary prosecution complaint, which stated that the investigation concerning the petitioner had been completed while further investigation continued into the roles of other suspects and the identification of additional proceeds of crime. Nevertheless, the Court considered the subsequent tracing of immovable assets, the information shared with the CBI and the ongoing investigation to be significant circumstances in assessing the petitioner’s prayer for bail.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306, emphasised that a Court considering bail under the PMLA must record its satisfaction regarding the mandatory requirements of Section 45, including whether reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. The filing of a prosecution complaint and the taking of cognizance, by themselves, do not justify the grant of bail without compliance with these statutory requirements.
The Court also noted the Supreme Court’s observations that money laundering is not an ordinary offence but an aggravated form of crime, and that any casual or cursory approach by courts while considering bail without considering the rigours of Section 45 cannot be vindicated. The statutory rigours of Section 45 must be duly considered before an accused is released on bail.
In view of the material placed before it, the ongoing investigation into the alleged proceeds of crime and the applicable legal principles, the Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to overcome the stringent requirements of Section 45 PMLA. Accordingly, the Court rejected the prayer for bail at this stage and dismissed the application.
[Sujit Bose v. Enforcement Directorate, C.R.M. (R) 58 OF 2026, decided on 13-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Kuldeep Rai, Adv.; Mr. Dhananjoy Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Singh Chauhan, Adv.; Ms. Nahid Ahmed, Adv.; Ms. Pragya Banerjee, Adv.; Ms. Aishwariya Mishra, Adv.
For the Enforcement Directorate: Mr. S. V. Raju, Ld. ASG; Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. ASG; Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Adil Rashid, Adv.; Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv.; Ms. Snigdha Ghosh, Adv.; Ms. Aparna Sarkar, Adv.; Mr. Aaryan Bansal, Adv.; Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.
