Case at a Glance
Sujit Bose, arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in May 2026 in the money-laundering case arising from the West Bengal municipal recruitment matter, sought bail arguing that the CBI had never named him in the predicate case and that his arrest was unnecessary after three years of cooperation. The ED alleged proceeds of crime of about ₹20.40 crore and a risk of witness influence. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh found “some force” in the ED’s submissions, noted that a vital stage of investigation was in progress, and held that the petitioner had failed to overcome the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA. Bail was rejected “at this stage”.
The predicate case traces back to an order of 21 April 2023 in WPA 9979 of 2022, by which the High Court directed the CBI to register an FIR in the municipal recruitment matter. The CBI registered a case the next day against Ayan Sil, M/s ABS Infozone and unknown public servants, and its charge-sheets of 30 June 2024 and 30 December 2024 did not name the petitioner. The ED registered its ECIR on 11 May 2023. Searches in 2023 at the premises of others allegedly yielded material including a spreadsheet bearing the petitioner’s name.
The ED issued summons under Section 50 PMLA in April 2026; the petitioner appeared on 1 May and 11 May 2026 and was then arrested. His bail plea was rejected by the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta on 21 May 2026, and he moved the High Court under Section 483 BNSS read with Section 45 PMLA. The ED alleged that about 340 candidates recommended by him were appointed, and pointed to a flat transaction, cash deposits of about ₹8.09 crore through restaurant businesses, share transfers and unsecured loans, and payments to him and his family from certain entities. During custody, it said, about 45 immovable properties were traced and information was shared with the CBI under Section 66(2) PMLA, leading to further CBI investigation.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a person accused of money laundering get bail under Section 45 of the PMLA when he is not named in the CBI’s charge-sheets in the predicate offence and claims his arrest was unnecessary?
Arrest Challenge vs. the Rigours of Section 45
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued for the petitioner that no predicate offence was attributable to him, that the ED waited about three years before coercive steps, that the power to arrest is distinct from the need to arrest under Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 07 SC CK 0035, (2025) 2 SCC 248, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 07 SC CK 0068, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SC CK 0001, (2024) 7 SCC 576, that the grounds of arrest and reasons to believe were identical, and that Section 45 is not an absolute bar in light of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 08 SC CK 0020, (2024) 12 SCC 660 and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) 07 SC CK 0102, (2023) 12 SCC 1. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, for the ED, relied on seized digital records, Section 50 statements and the money trail, and pressed the risk of influencing witnesses.
Justice Ghosh observed that the petitioner’s emphasis was largely on the arrest and continued custody. He said, “I find that there is some force in the submission of Enforcement Directorate”, pointing to the traced assets, the Section 66(2) information sharing and the ongoing CBI probe as showing a vital stage of investigation. Relying on Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad, (2025) 02 SC CK 0702, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306, the court noted that filing of a complaint or cognizance does not by itself justify bail without satisfying Section 45, and that “The offence of money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime world over”. The judgment did not rule on the legality of the arrest, which is the subject of a separate writ petition.
What the Court Actually Held
- The petitioner failed to overcome the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA.
- That a vital stage of investigation, including tracing of assets and further CBI investigation, was in progress weighed against bail.
- Filing of a prosecution complaint and cognizance do not by themselves justify bail without compliance with Section 45, following Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad.
- The bail prayer “at this stage” was rejected and C.R.M. (R) 58 of 2026 was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows that absence from the predicate charge-sheet does not automatically secure bail in a PMLA case.
- It underlines how ongoing investigation, including asset tracing, can weigh heavily under Section 45.
- It leaves the separate challenge to the legality of the arrest for decision in the pending writ proceedings.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For the Public
- The court did not decide guilt; it only refused bail at this stage.
- The arrest’s legality is being tested separately in a writ petition.
For Counsel
- Under Section 45, address both limbs specifically; arguments focused only on the arrest may not suffice.
- Expect the stage of investigation and asset tracing to be decisive.
- Note the reliance on Kanhaiya Prasad on bail after the prosecution complaint.
Key Takeaways
- Section 45 PMLA rigours were held not overcome.
- Not being named by the CBI did not by itself earn bail.
- Ongoing investigation was a key factor against release.
- Bail was refused “at this stage”, leaving room for a later plea.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was Sujit Bose found guilty?
No. The High Court only rejected his bail application at this stage. Guilt is a matter for trial.
Why was he not granted bail though the CBI had not named him?
The court found force in the ED’s submissions, noted that a vital stage of investigation was in progress, and held that he had not overcome the rigours of Section 45 PMLA.
Did the court decide whether the arrest was illegal?
No. The judgment did not rule on the legality of the arrest or on the argument that the grounds and reasons to believe were identical; a separate writ petition is pending.
Conclusion
The judgment applies the stringent bail standard of the PMLA, giving weight to the stage of investigation over the absence of the petitioner’s name in the predicate charge-sheets, while leaving the arrest challenge to another forum.
Practical takeaway: In PMLA bail, focus on the twin conditions of Section 45 and the stage of investigation; arrest-centric arguments may need to be pursued separately.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com