Calcutta High Court grants bail to alleged fake-passport agent after 10 months in custody, citing chronic lung disease and lack of charges in predicate cases

The petitioner sought bail in ML Case No. 4 of 2025 arising from ECIR/ELZO-II/06/2025 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), pending before the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta.

He was arrested on 13 October 2025 under Section 19 of the PMLA.

The Enforcement Directorate alleged that he acted as a passport agent and facilitated the procurement of forged Indian identity documents and passports for foreign nationals, including Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals, charging approximately ₹20,000 for a passport and ₹50,000 for a complete set of documents.

The ED relied on statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, bank transactions, call-detail records, and allegedly forged documents connected with 300–400 passport applications.

The petitioner contended that he was not named in either predicate-offence FIR, had not been chargesheeted in those cases, and that one predicate case had initially ended in a final report.

The petitioner had been in custody for nearly ten months.

He was approximately 57 years old and suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chest pain, shortness of breath and cough.

During custody, he required repeated hospital and outpatient treatment, including admissions to AIIMS, Kalyani.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the PMLA despite the statutory restrictions contained in Section 45 of the PMLA?

Whether the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration, chronic medical condition and the absence of his arraignment in the predicate-offence cases justified his release on bail?

The Court applied Sections 3, 4, 19 and 45 of the PMLA.

Section 45 imposes twin conditions for bail, requiring the Court to have reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

However, relying on V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 12 SCC 660, the Court held that prolonged incarceration may, in an appropriate case, outweigh the rigour of Section 45.

The decisions cited by the ED, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, concerning the validity and mandatory nature of Section 45, were treated as governing the statutory framework but not as precluding bail in the circumstances of prolonged custody and serious illness.

The Court found that, on the merits of the allegations, the petitioner could not readily overcome the Section 45 restrictions because the prosecution material included alleged money trails, call records and evidence connecting him with the passport-document racket.

Nevertheless, the Court attached significance to the fact that the petitioner had not been named or chargesheeted in either predicate-offence case, while one such case had initially resulted in a final report, notwithstanding the subsequent revival of the investigation.

The Court further observed that, as matters presently stood, the admissible allegation against the petitioner appeared principally to concern the parking or handling of tainted money.

Balancing these considerations against the petitioner’s nearly ten-month incarceration and documented chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which had necessitated repeated medical consultations and hospital admissions while in custody, the Court held that the prolonged detention and medical condition justified departure from the ordinary rigour of Section 45.

The bail order was expressly based, among other factors, on the petitioner’s serious medical condition and was not to be treated as a precedent for other co-accused.

The Court directed the petitioner’s release upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of like amount, one of whom had to be local, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta.

The conditions included surrender of his passport, a prohibition on foreign travel without the Trial Court’s permission, disclosure of his mobile number and address, non-contact with or intimidation of witnesses, and regular appearance before the Trial Court.

The Trial Court was authorised to cancel bail in the event of violation of any condition.