Failed To Overcome Rigors Of S. 45 PMLA: Calcutta High Court Denies Bail To Former Minister Sujit Bose In Money Laundering Case
The Court noted that the filing of prosecution complaint is no ground for bail; and held that a “vital stage of the investigation is in progress” after about 45 properties traced during custody.
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has refused bail to former West Bengal Minister, Sujit Bose in a money-laundering case, holding that he failed to overcome the rigors of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Referring to Union of India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya 18 Prasad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306, the Court reiterated that the filing of a prosecution complaint and the taking of cognizance cannot by themselves justify release when the mandatory twin conditions are unsatisfied.
The Court found force in the Enforcement Directorate’s submission that, although its complaint described the investigation qua the accused as complete, a vital stage of the probe remained in progress. While Bose was in custody in August-September 2026, about 45 immovable properties of his family were traced through certified deeds, and valuation reports are awaited. Information shared under Section 66(2) of the PMLA has also led the CBI to begin further investigation.
A Bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh observed, “...I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to overcome the rigors of Section 45 PMLA Act, as such the prayer for bail of the petitioner at this stage is rejected”.
Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sabyasachi Banerjee appeared for the petitioner while S. V. Raju and Dhiraj Trivedi, ASGs and Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the respondent.
Bose is a former Vice-Chairman of South Dum Dum Municipality, MLA and Minister of State. The ED alleges he laundered proceeds of about Rs. 20.40 crore generated through illegal municipal recruitments. The alleged routes include flats acquired for inadequate consideration, Rs. 8.09 crore in cash deposits through hospitality businesses, shareholding transfers with unsecured loans, and structured payments to himself and his children. He denies the allegations and says no proceeds have been traced to him.
The CBI registered the predicate case on April 22, 2023, on the High Court's direction, without naming Bose. The ED recorded its ECIR on May 11, 2023, and arrested him on May 11, 2026, after he appeared on summons. The Special Court rejected his bail by an order dated May 21, 2026. Bose argued that the delay in arrest negated custodial necessity, that the “reasons to believe” and “grounds of arrest” were verbatim identical, and that Section 45 is not an absolute bar. A separate writ challenging the arrest of 2026, is pending.
The Court noted the ED’s own statement that investigation qua Bose was complete. It nonetheless found that the traced properties, the information shared with the CBI, newly surfaced sources of funds and the CBI’s further investigation justified continued custody. It endorsed the observation in Kanhaiya Prasad that money laundering is not an ordinary offence and that bail cannot be granted through cryptic orders that ignore the rigours of Section 45.
“Yet, I find that there is some force in the submission of Enforcement Directorate in view of the issue relating to justification of custody as during the period of August to September 2026, while the petitioner was in custody in course of investigation itself, immovable assets belonging to the petitioner and his family members which number about 45 (by way of certified copies of the deeds having been obtained from the office of the Additional District Sub Registrars) could be traced. Registered valuers have been engaged to estimate the market value of such properties and the report is awaiting. Additionally, information has been shared with the Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 in respect of number of undeserving candidates being recommended by the petitioner for being employed in the municipality. Other sources of funds have also surfaced in course of such investigation by examining the material witnesses. The Central Bureau of Investigation has also commenced further investigation after informing the Learned Special Court pursuant to receipt of information by the Enforcement Directorate. A vital stage of the investigation is in progress”, the Bench noted.
Holding that the petitioner had failed to overcome Section 45, the Court rejected bail “at this stage,” dismissed the application and disposed of pending applications.
Cause Title: Sujit Bose v. Directorate of Enforcement C.R.M. (R) 58 OF 2026
Petitioner: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sabyasachi Banerjee, Senior Advocates, with Kuldeep Rai and others.
Respondent: S. V. Raju and Dhiraj Trivedi, ASGs, and Zoheb Hossain, Senior Advocate, with others.