SK JINNAR ALI @ JINNAR ALI vs ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta
C.R.M. (R) 06 of 2026
Sk. Jinnar Ali @ Jinnar Ali
Vs.
Enforcement Directorate
For the petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Subhashis Dasgupta
Sk. Md. Shahin Uz Zaman
Md. Nizamuddin Molla
.....Advocates
For the ED : Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti
Mr. Debsoumya Basak
Ms. Swati Kumari Singh
.....Advocates
Heard lastly on : 07.09.2026
Judgment on : 07.09.2026
Jay Sengupta, J:
1. This is an application for bail in connection with ML Case No. 9 of
2025 arising out of ECIR/KLZO – I/12/2025 dated 01.07.2025 under
2
Section 4 read with Section 70 of the PML Act, 2002 presently pending
before the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted and has relied on the written notes as follows. On 24.10.2024,
one Tapan Kumar Poi served a legal notice for clearing of his dues of Rs. 20
lakhs upon the present petitioner which clearly stated about a dispute
purely civil and commercial in nature. On 07.11.2024, the petitioner replied
to such and denied and disputed all the allegations made therein. On
18.06.2025, FIR being Bidhannagar South Police Station Case No. 114 of
2025 was registered for investigation for commission of offences punishable
under Sections 384, 419, 420, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant
to complaint filed by the said Tapan Kumar Poi, on 01.07.2025,
ECIR/KLZO-1/12/2025 dated 01.07.2025, under Section 4 read with
Section 70 of PMLA, 2002 against the present petitioner was registered for
investigation. On 02.07.2025, the present petitioner was arrested in
connection with ML Case No. 09 of 2025 and was produced before the
Learned Court below. On 23.07.2025, the complainant of the predicate
offence was examined and his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA was
recorded. On 08.09.2025, a prosecution complaint was filed by the
Enforcement Directorate against the present petitioner. Cognizance was
taken by the Learned Special Judge pursuant to the prosecution complaint.
On 22.07.2025, the petitioner was shown arrested and produced before the
ACJM, Bidhannagar and wherein the Learned Court was pleased to grant a
police custody for 6 (six) days. On 20.08.2025, the Learned ACJM,
3
Bidhannagar was pleased to grant prayer for bail made on behalf of the
petitioner. On 14.01.2026, charges were framed against the present
petitioner under Section 3 and 4 read with Section 70 of PMLA. On
28.01.2026, evidence of PW-1, Mainak Roy Chowdhury was recorded. On
11.02.2026, evidence of PW-2, Tinku Chanda was recorded. On 25.02.2026,
11.03.2026 and 25.03.2026 the Court was not in session and no judicial
work took place. On 08.04.2026, evidence of PW-3, Tapan Kumar Poi was
partly recorded. On 22.04.2026, as no witness turned up the case was
adjourned. On 06.05.2026, as no witness turned up the date was adjourned
and the next date was fixed on 20.05.2026. FIR No.114 of 2025 dated
18.06.2025 registered by Bidhannagar South Police Station, Bidhannagar
Commissionerate under Sections 384/419/420/506/414 of IPC, was based
on a written complaint by Shri Tapan Kumar Poi, wherein it was alleged that
– i) in the year 2023, the said defacto complainant was first contacted over
the phone from mobile number 9083101111 by certain individuals allegedly
one Jinnar Ali and one Nisar Ali who introduced themselves as Officers of
the Enforcement Directorate (in short BD); ii) These individuals summoned
the said defacto complainant to appear in front of the Commissionerate
Office, Bidhannagar, under the pretense of an official inquiry; iii) Upon
meeting, they falsely accused the de facto complainant of conducting illegal
business through his sand mining operations and alleged discrepancies in
his financial accounts; iv) To create an illusion of legitimacy, the accused
individuals arrived in a Toyota Fortuner vehicle bearing registration number
WB-02AW/6002, which displayed an 'ED' insignia; v) They claimed that
4
enforcement actions from both the ED and the CBI were imminent unless
the de facto complainant agreed to meet their demands; vi) Under continued
threats of office raids, property seizure, and arrest, the de facto complainant
was coerced into cooperating with them; vii) From August 2023 to June
2024, under persistent pressure and intimidation, the said de facto
complainant was forced to pay a total of 21.30 crore in cash; viii) These
payments were made in person in front of the Commissionerate Office,
Bidhannagar, beside Salt Lake Stadium; ix) The accused individuals
demanded that these transactions be conducted discreetly; reinforcing the
narrative that non-compliance would result in severe legal consequences.
Since the offences under Sections 384, 419 & 420 of IPC corresponding to
Section 308 (2), 319(2) & 318(4) of BNS) are covered under schedule of
offences under Paragraph 1 of Part A of the schedule appended to
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short PMLA, 2002), as
amended, and since the predicate offence under the FIR No. 114 of 2025
dated 18.06.2025 supra indicates towards generation of proceeds of crime
(in short POC) as defined 4/2/14) of PMLA, 2002 and further laundering of
the same, Complainant herein registered Enforcement Case Information
Report (in short ECIR) No. ECIR/KLZO-1/12/2025 dated 01.07.2025 for
investigation under the provisions of PMLA, 2002. After completion of
purported investigation the Enforcement Director filed its complaint in final
for commission of offences punishable under Section 4 read with Section 70
of the PMLA, against the present petitioner, and pursuant to such the
Learned Chief Judge, City Session Court, Calcutta was pleased by its order
5
dated 03.07.2025 to take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein. The
petitioner had filed an application for discharge before the Learned Trial
Court, when the Learned Trial Court was pleased by its order dated
22.12.2025, to turn down the petitioner‟s prayer. As Mr. Tapan Poi had filed
a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Bidhannagar South Police Station
wherein he alleged about the misrepresentation on the part of the present
petitioner by projecting himself as an officer of the enforcement directorate
however it is pertinent to mention herein the said Tapan Kumar Poi served
with the letter of demand upon the present petitioner on 24.10.2024
through his Learned Advocate inter alia asking for repayment of the sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- paid towards of business agreement and due to the
unsatisfactory work on the part of the petitioner company he demanded for
repayment of the same. However there has not been a single iota of
allegation pertaining to misrepresentation as ED Officer. In reply to the said
letter your petitioner served in a legal notice on 07.11.2024 which was duly
acknowledge by him stating herein about the non payment of the dues
which was entitled from the said Tapan Kumar Dey, hence it has been
palpable that the complainant had purposely diverted the instant case in
order to wreck vengeance against the present petitioner. For that one Hafizul
Islam, has been projected by the prosecution as of victim of circumstances
by the present petitioner, who has been also duped by the petitioner in the
same however there is an existing of the consultancy agreement being
entered by and between the petitioner and the said witness namely Hafizul
Islam on 15.12.2022 and due to the fact that the said Hafizul was involved
6
in different kind of antisocial activities the petitioner through his Learned
Advocate served in the legal notice dated 27.01.2025 pursuant to which he
discontinued the agreement and returned him back the sum of
Rs.75,00,000/- being paid on his part and your petitioner further informed
about the illegal activities and threat and harassment perpetrated on the
part of the said Hafizul to different authorities. The prosecution had relied
upon statement of one Anjana Goel and Anant Agarwal in connection with
another money laundering case not the same Investigating Officer, however
the grounds of arrest which was served upon the present petitioner discloses
about the statement of the said Anjana Goel and Anant Agarwal recorded
under Section 50 of the PMLA Act, 2000. However the investigating agency
have not taken a single permission from the Learned Court below before
relying upon the statement recorded in connection with another case.
Hence, the grounds of arrest served upon the present petitioner is
thoroughly misconceived and thoroughly against the principal of natural
justice and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances the
petitioner prayer for bail may be considered and allowed by this Hon'ble
Court. The enforcement directorate had exceeded its jurisdiction beyond the
scope of the prevention of money laundering Act, 2002. Admittedly, the
Enforcement Directorate had exceeded its jurisdiction in the instant case by
bringing down facts which are not connected with the allegation leveled in
the complaint of the predicate offence which is completely violation of the
provisions of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Admittedly, the investigation of predicate offence is still pending and even if
7
the Learned Special Court completes the witness action which till date four
prosecution witness has been examine in connection with the instant case
and that the present petitioner cannot be convicted as till the time the
predicate offence comes to any logical conclusion as such the continuation
of the custody of the present petitioner is thoroughly abrasive and calls for
an interference of this Court. The petitioner is already on bail in the
predicate offence case. He was shown arrest in connection with the
predicate offence and was produced before the Learned ACJM Bidhannagar
on 22.07.2025 and was subsequently released on bail by the Learned
Magistrate on 20th August, 2025. As such, the prolonged custody of the
present petitioner in connection with the instance case is thoroughly
harassive and cause for an interference of this Court. The petitioner was
arrested in connection with the instance case on 02.07.2025 and since then
he has been in custody for more than 1 year.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate
has submitted and has relied on the written notes as follows. The
investigation by the Bidhannagar (South) Police Station in FIR No. 114 dated
18.06.2025 is still in progress since no charge-sheet has been filed yet
before the Ld. ACJM, Bidhannagar in G.R. No. 598/2025. As such, it would
be pre-mature to presume that the proceeds of crime generated from the
predicate offence is limited to the extent of complaint dated 18.06.2025 of
the de facto complainant therein. Further, by producing Case-Diary before
this Court, it is contended that ED has duly shared information u/s 66(2) of
PMLA with the investigating authority in the predicate offence and hence,
8
the quantum of POC cannot be assumed at this stage by ignoring the
overwhelming evidences collected during the investigation. Even assuming,
though not admitting, that the POC is limited to the complaint dated
18.06.2025 of the de facto complainant therein, the said complaint in FIR
No. 114 dated 18.06.2025 would show that the POC is Rs. 1.50 Cr. and
hence, in order to get bail, the accused/petitioner is to satisfy the
mandatory conditions of Section 45(1) of PMLA. 2002. That searches
conducted under Section 17 of PMLA at the premises of the
accused/petitioner resulted in recovery of several incriminating documents
and things as would evident from internal pages 15 to 23 of the Prosecution
Complaint dated 30.08.2025 filed by ED in ML Case No. 09 of 2025 before
the Ld. Special Court, which inter alia includes fake identity cards, visiting
cards, rubber stamps, letter heads, letters of ED etc. which are corroborative
towards the complaint in the predicate offence that the accused/petitioner
resorted to extortion of money from various victims by impersonating
himself as the officer of ED/high ranking Government official. Even the
accused/petitioner portrayed his wife as CBI Officer before various victims
and issued fake letters of ED to the victims for initiating investigation
against them. That further it is found that accused/petitioner projected
himself to be Chairman of National Anti-Trafficking Committee (in short
'NATC) claimed to registered under NITI Aayog, Govt. of India. The website of
NATC was designed by displaying logos of NITI Aayog and National Emblem.
The web domain being https://natcgov.in was made to create an impression
of Government website. Likewise web domains of other fake organization of
9
the accused/petitioner were also developed
e.g. https://asiaticgov.in or https://www.arogovt.in. Mr. Subhojit Sarkar,
being the web designer, in his statements under Section 50 of PMLA duly
admitted the fact of use of logos of Government of India in such websites at
the instance of the accused/petitioner to create the impression that it is a
Government organization. That source of cash deposit of Rs.61.15 Lakh in
the bank account of M/s. Sparklink Strategy and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., being
admittedly the company of the accused/petitioner, could not be explained
during the investigation by the accused/petitioner. Further, source of fund
of 10 (ten) immovable properties, also could not be satisfactorily provided by
the accused/petitioner. His claim of „family settlement‟ has not been
substantiated by any document. In terms of Section 24 of PMLA, 2002 in
absence of the discharge of burden of proof by the accused, the Court is to
consider such sum as POC. That the averment on behalf of the
accused/petitioner that he had commercial business dispute with Tapan
Kumar Poi i.e., the de facto complainant in FIR No. 114 dated 18.06.2025, is
completely unfounded inasmuch as in the purported 'Response' dated
07.11.2024 of the Ld. Advocate of the accused/petitioner the nature of
purported service rendered by the „company‟ of the accused could not be
mentioned. It was only mentioned that he accepted consultancy fees for
professional services provided by our company in consultancy, business
strategy, and management consulting" which itself shows that there was no
actual „business relation‟. That, further, the purported „Consultancy
Agreement‟, purported complaint dated 27.01.2024 before Raina P.S., Legal
10
Notice dated 27.01.2025 and purported complaints of the
accused/petitioner, as relied upon by the accused/petitioner, are all
purportedly directed against one „Hafizul Islam‟ who has no connection with
the said de facto complainant in the predicate offence. In the said purported
agreement also it is mentioned that the 'company' of the accused/petitioner
is “expert advisor on operations, strategy, management, IT, finance,
marketing, HR and supply chain management across a wide range of
industries and specialism”, however, during investigation, the
accused/petitioner could not produce a single document to support any
legal business with any client in that regard at any point of time. That even
after arrest of the accused/petitioner herein, the de facto complainant is
receiving threats for withdrawal of complaint. As such, enlargement of the
accused/petitioner on bail at this stage shall seriously prejudice the on-
going trial in M.L. Case No. 09 of 2025 which is at evidence stage while the
evidence of CSW-19/PW-3 i.e., the de facto complainant is going on. By
producing Report dated 05.03.2026 of IO before this Court it is pleaded on
behalf of ED that there are 12 vulnerable witnesses in the said trial before
the Learned Special Court. The analysis of various bank accounts of the
accused/petitioner revealed huge transactions without any actual or
legitimate source of business and rather corroborating the fact of extortion/
cheating of money from various victims by the accused/petitioner. The
accused/petitioner was arrested on 02.07.2025 and the trial in ML Case No.
09 of 2025 before the Learned Special Court is at substantial progress and
hence, there is no question of any incarceration without trial in the present
11
case. It is submitted that Section 479 of BNSS duly provides the maximum
period for which undertrial prisoner can be detained and in the present
case, such period has not eclipsed yet. As stated before, there is every
possibility of tampering of evidence and influencing the witness coupled with
the chance of abscond if the accused herein is enlarged on bail at this stage.
In other words, the tripod test of bail under Cr.P.C./BNSS, which are also
made additional conditions under Section 45(2) of PMLA, are also not
satisfied in the present case for granting of bail to the accused/petitioner. It
is submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that “No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance
to procedure established by law”. The provision of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002
has been upheld by the Hon'ble Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in case of Vijay Madanial Choudhary and Others v. Union of India
and Others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929) Para 387 to 390, 398 to 400 and 403
to 406. Thus, the procedure adopted under Section 45(1) of the PMLA, 2002
has been established by law. The validity of „twin conditions‟ under said
provision of law as condition precedent for bail in an offence of money-
laundering has been tested and upheld in the touchstone of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India already. That reliance is placed on the following
judicial pronouncements in support of the contentions of ED:
(i) Vijay Madanlal Choudhary &Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. [2022 SCC
OnLine SC 929]; (ii) Tarun Kumar vs Assistant Director Directorate of
Enforcement [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486]; iii) The Union of India through
the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad [2025 SCC OnLine SC 306]; (iv)
12
Gautam Kundu Vs Directorate of Enforcement [(2015) 16 SCC 1]; (v)
Sikandar Singh versus Enforcement Directorate &Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine
P&H 860]; (vi) Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2018) 11 SCC
46]; (vii) Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [(2013) 7 SCC 439]; (viii) Imran vs.
Mr. Mohammed Bhava & Anr. [(2022) 13 SCC 70]; (ix) Anil Kumar Yadav vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) [(2018) 12 SCC 129]; (x) Anirudh Kamal Shukla v.
Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine All 176]; (xi) Mohammad Arif v.
Directorate of Enforcement [2020 SCC OnLine Ori 544]; (xii) Directorate of
Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi [2023 SCC OnLine SC 619]; (xiii) Gautam
Thapar vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2022 SCC OnLine Del 642]; (xiv)
Deepak Yadav vs. State of UP & Anr. [(2022) 8 SCC 559]; (xv) Shailesh
Kumar Pandey v. Union of India [AIR OnLine 2024 CAL 1237]; (xvi)
Judgment dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court in CRM (M) 932 of 2025 [Basudeb Bagchi & Anr. v.
Enforcement Directorate Para]; (xvii) Judgment dated 16.03.2026 passed by
the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in CRM(R) 20 of 2025
[Prasenjit Das v. Enforcement Directorate. Accordingly, on behalf of ED it is
most humbly prayed that the prayer for bail of the accused/petitioner herein
may kindly be rejected at this stage in the interest of fair trial.
4. I heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
application, the written notes filed on behalf of the parties and the materials
collected during investigation.
5. At the outset, it is made clear that the allegations against the present
petitioner in the complaint as well as in the FIR for the predicate offences
13
are far too serious. It was alleged among other things, that the petitioner
duped individuals like the de facto complainant of huge sums of money by
posing as an officer of the Enforcement Directorate. Forged documents were
prepared. After perusing the materials made available by the investigating
agency, it does not appear that the petitioner has been able to surmount the
restriction contained in the Section 45 of the PML Act in respect of grant of
bail.
6. However, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had held that prolonged
incarceration of an accused in custody may outweigh the rigors of Section
45 of the PML Act in certain cases. Reference may be made to the decisions
in Senthil Balaji, 2024 SCC Online 2626 and Manish Sisodia, (2024) 12 SCC
660. Incidentally, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the present
case on 02.07.2025. So, he is now in custody for more than a year.
7. That apart, there are certain mitigating circumstances present in the
instant case so far as the issue of grant of bail is concerned. First, the
petitioner was shown arrested in connection with a predicate offence case
and produced before the Learned Magistrate on 22.07.2025 and was
released on bail soon on 20.08.2025. Secondly and more importantly, the
investigation in the predicate offences case is not complete yet. Moreover,
from the materials collected during investigation in the PML Act case, it
appears that the Enforcement Directorate had dealt with original issues that
did not necessarily pertain to the parking of the tainted money and some did
not even have any mention in the predicate offences case. This can fairly be
subject matter of another predicate offences case. It will be for the Trial
14
Court to finally decide the relevance of these materials, unless they get
finally covered by the original predicate offence case.
8. It is true that in the present case, the prosecution has been handled
much better. Trial is proceeding and some witnesses have been examined.
Therefore, it is important to ensure that the presence of the petitioner
during trial, even if this is found to be a fit case for granting bail to the
petitioner.
9. Considering the above and the fact that the petitioner has been in
custody for more than a year in connection with the present case, while he
is on bail in the predicate offences case where even the investigation is
pending, I am inclined to allow the application for bail of the petitioner.
10. The petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be
local, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Calcutta and on further
condition that –
(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the
learned Trial Court forthwith;
(ii) He shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the
learned Trial Court without its leave;
(iii) He shall intimate his mobile phone number/s and his
place of residence to the investigating officer as well as to
the learned Trial Court;
15
(iv) He shall not intimidate witnesses or try to contact them
in any manner whatsoever during pendency of the trial;
(v) He shall appear before the learned Trial Court regularly;
(vi) In case of any violation of this order, the Trial Court
shall at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without
any further reference to this Court.
11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties, upon completion of requisite formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)