YOGESH DUA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT KOLKATA
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APELLATE SIDE
The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH
CRM (M) 1515 of 2026
Yogesh Dua
v/s.
Directorate of Enforcement
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sourav Chatterjee
Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee
Mr. K.L. Mukherjee
Ms. Shrestha Bhattacharjee
For the E.D.: Mr. Arijit Chakraborty
Ms. Swati Kr. Singh
Hearing concluded on: 19.08.2026
Judgment delivered on: 03.09.2026
SUVRA GHOSH, J. :-
th
1. The petitioner is in custody since 4 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
th
registered FIR no. 60 of 2024 on 17 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
rd
23 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
th
Judicial Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, Delhi on 24 February, 2025
seeking regular bail and was granted interim bail for seven days. The
2
order was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in Delhi by the Cyber
th
Police of West Bengal and by an order passed on 27 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
th
sheet submitted by the Cyber Police on 19 March, 2025 and was granted
nd
bail in the scheduled offence on 2 July, 2025. During his custody in the
predicate offence, he was apprehended by the Kolkata Cyber Police on
nd
22 March, 2025 in connection with FIR no. 65 of 2024 and was
th
subsequently granted bail on 29 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 The cash recovered therefrom was withdrawn by the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.
2. The Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as the E.D.)
th
registered ECIR No. KLZO-I/06/2025 on 24 March, 2025 pursuant to
the predicate offence and the petitioner was arrested in connection with
th
the same on 4 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.
3
3. 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.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following
authorities in support of his contention.
1. Arvind Dham v/s. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2026
Supreme Court Cases Online SC 30;
2. Ramkripal Meena v/s. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2024
(12) Supreme Court Cases 682;
3. Manish Sisodia v/s. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2024 (12)
Supreme Court Cases 660;
4. V. Senthil Balaji v/s. Deputy Director, Director of Enforcement
reported in 2024 Supreme Court Cases Online SC 2626; and
5. Prasenjit Das v/s. Enforcement Directorate in CRM (R) 20 of 2025.
5. 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
4
E.D. conceded to the request of the petitioner and the documents have
been supplied.
6. 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.
7. I have considered the rival contention of the parties and material on
record.
8. 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
th
the PMLA. By a judgment delivered on 7 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.
5
9. 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.
10. 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).
11. 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.
6
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.
12. Accordingly, prayer for bail is allowed.
13. 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:-
(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport with the
learned Trial Court at once;
(ii) He shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the
learned Trial Court without leave of the learned trial
Court;
(iii) He shall furnish the address where he shall presently
reside before the learned trial Court, the E.D. and the
Inspector-in-charge/Officer-in-charge of the police
station under whose jurisdiction he shall presently
reside;
(iv) He shall appear before the learned Trial Court on every
date of hearing fixed by the learned Court;
7
(v) He shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate
witnesses in any manner whatsoever;
(vi) He shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall
not communicate with or come in contact with the
witnesses;
(vii) He shall provide his mobile phone number before the
learned Trial Court and the investigating agency and
shall not change the same without prior intimation to
the Court;
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. CRM (M) 1515 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of.
18. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded
from the official website of this Court.
8
19. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied
to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.
(Suvra Ghosh, J)