Yogesh Dua vs Directorate Of Enforcement

SUVRA GHOSH, J. :-

The petitioner is in custody since 4^th April, 2025 and has prayed for bail primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration without trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cyber police, Kolkata registered FIR no. 60 of 2024 on 17^th June, 2024 in respect of a cyber fraud of Rs. 47,00,000/- (forty seven lakhs). The petitioner was not named therein. A search was conducted at the petitioner’s residence on 23^rd February, 2025 pursuant to a statement of a co-accused. He was arrested on the same date. He approached the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, Delhi on 24^th February, 2025 seeking regular bail and was granted interim bail for seven days. The order was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in Delhi by the Cyber Police of West Bengal and by an order passed on 27^th February, 2025 the Hon’ble Court stayed the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and granted transit remand of the petitioner. He was named in the charge sheet submitted by the Cyber Police on 19^th March, 2025 and was granted bail in the scheduled offence on 2^nd July, 2025. During his custody in the predicate offence, he was apprehended by the Kolkata Cyber Police on 22^nd March, 2025 in connection with FIR no. 65 of 2024 and was subsequently granted bail on 29^th March, 2024. The material seized from the petitioner’s house are personal belongings of the petitioner and his family members and have no nexus with the allegations under investigation. The cash recovered therefrom was withdrawn by the petitioner from his personal bank account for meeting routine expenses and addressing medical exigencies.

The Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as the E.D.) registered ECIR No. KLZO-I/06/2025 on 24^th March, 2025 pursuant to the predicate offence and the petitioner was arrested in connection with the same on 4^th April, 2025. Though the grounds of arrest attribute an active and direct role to the petitioner in the offence, the prosecution complaint identifies Chirag Kapoor as the principal accused. The role of the petitioner is confined to that of an alleged beneficiary. Chirag Kapoor has been granted bail on medical grounds.

The trial is at the stage of pre-cognizance hearing. The case is based on documentary evidence which is in custody of the E.D. The E.D. has relied upon voluminous documents and shall examine a good number of witnesses. Possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is bleak. The petitioner seeks bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following authorities in support of his contention.

Arvind Dham v/s. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2026 Supreme Court Cases Online SC 30;

Ramkripal Meena v/s. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2024 (12) Supreme Court Cases 682;

Manish Sisodia v/s. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2024 (12) Supreme Court Cases 660;

V. Senthil Balaji v/s. Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement reported in 2024 Supreme Court Cases Online SC 2626; and

Prasenjit Das v/s. Enforcement Directorate in CRM (R) 20 of 2025.

Vehemently opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the E.D. has submitted that out of 13 accused named in the prosecution report, one is still absconding. Prayer for anticipatory bail filed by the brother in law of the petitioner has been turned down by the learned Trial Court and is pending before this Court. The petitioner’s brother Aditya Dua, though not an accused in the present complaint, is absconding. The petitioner complained that all relied upon documents were not supplied to him. The E.D. conceded to the request of the petitioner and the documents have been supplied.

The prosecution case is based on substantial independent evidence including statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short the PMLA) and investigation has revealed active participation of the petitioner in the offence as one of the principal co-ordinators of the network. The cumulative effect of evidence clearly establishes a strong prima facie case demonstrating the petitioner’s conscious involvement in the concealment, transfer, layering and projection of proceeds of crime as untainted property.

I have considered the rival contention of the parties and material on record.

At the outset, it is recorded that the petitioner approached this Court in a writ petition being WPA 8323 of 2025 challenging the legality of his arrest and remand on the ground that the arrest was violative of Section 19 of the PMLA. By a judgment delivered on 7^th January, 2026, this Court dismissed the writ petition with an observation that the mandate laid down under Section 19 of the Act was complied with by the arresting officer in effecting arrest of the petitioner. The Court made it clear that the merits of the case were not gone into and in the event the petitioner sought bail on merits, the appropriate Court would deal with the same independently in accordance with law.

The petitioner is in custody for more than a year. He was granted bail in the scheduled offences. The case is at the stage of pre-cognizance hearing.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence cannot turn into punitive detention and in such cases Article 21 applies irrespective of the seriousness of the crime. A constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. However stringent a statute may be, a constitutional Court should lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the authority in Arvind Dham (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment. On the same issue, the Hon’ble Court has observed in the authority in RamKripal Meena (supra) that the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA can be suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty to the petitioner. The said principle has been echoed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the authorities in Manish Sisodia (supra) and V. Senthil Balaji (supra).

The case is based on documentary evidence which is in custody of the E.D. There is little scope for the petitioner to tamper with the same. Having regard to the fact that the case is at the pre-cognizance stage, possibility of completion of trial in near future is bleak. In view of the period of incarceration of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to hold that he may be released on bail subject to stringent conditions on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without going into the merits of the case.

Accordingly, prayer for bail is allowed.

The petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) with adequate sureties of like amount each, half of whom should be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

witnesses in any manner whatsoever;

In the event the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions stated above, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.

It is made clear that the observation made in this judgment is for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

The learned Trial Court shall deal with the matter independently in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation which may have been made in this judgment.

CRM (M) 1515 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.