Calcutta High Court grants bail to man accused of extorting crores by posing as an ED officer after over a year in custody

The petitioner sought bail in ML Case No. 9 of 2025 arising from ECIR/KLZO-I/12/2025, registered under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).

The predicate FIR, Bidhannagar South Police Station Case No. 114 of 2025, alleged that the petitioner impersonated an Enforcement Directorate officer, threatened the de facto complainant with raids and arrest, and extorted substantial sums of money between August 2023 and June 2024.

The petitioner was arrested in the PMLA case on 2 July 2025 and had remained in custody for more than one year. Charges had been framed on 14 January 2026, and evidence of three prosecution witnesses had commenced, although the investigation in the predicate offence remained incomplete.

The petitioner was on bail in the predicate offence.

The ED opposed bail on the grounds of the seriousness of the allegations, the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA, the possibility of witness intimidation, and the ongoing trial.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the restrictions imposed by Section 45(1) of the PMLA, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the material collected by the ED?

2. Whether prolonged incarceration, the petitioner’s bail in the predicate offence, and the incomplete investigation into that offence justified granting bail notwithstanding the rigours of Section 45 PMLA?

3. Whether bail could be granted subject to conditions safeguarding the petitioner’s presence during trial and preventing witness intimidation or tampering?

The Court applied Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 70 of the PMLA concerning the offence and punishment of money laundering by companies, and Section 45(1)–(2), which imposes twin conditions for bail in PMLA offences.

The Court recognised that the applicant must ordinarily demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail, in addition to satisfying the ordinary considerations governing bail.

It relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, upholding the statutory bail restrictions under Section 45 PMLA.

However, it also relied on Senthil Balaji, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, and Manish Sisodia, (2024) 12 SCC 660, for the principle that prolonged incarceration may, in appropriate circumstances, outweigh the rigours of Section 45 PMLA.

The Court further applied the general principles of bail, including the need to secure the accused’s presence, prevent witness intimidation and avoid obstruction of the trial.

The Court found the allegations to be extremely serious, involving alleged impersonation of an ED officer, extortion and preparation of forged documents.

On the material then available, the petitioner had not clearly satisfied the statutory requirements under Section 45 PMLA.

Nevertheless, the Court held that prolonged custody could outweigh the statutory restrictions in an appropriate case.

The petitioner had been incarcerated since 2 July 2025, had already spent more than a year in custody, and was on bail in the predicate case, where investigation was still incomplete.

The Court also noted that the ED investigation appeared to encompass matters not necessarily connected with the parking or laundering of the proceeds identified in the predicate offence.

The relevance and ultimate evidentiary significance of those materials would have to be determined at trial.

Although the PMLA trial had progressed and witnesses had been examined, the Court considered that the risks identified by the ED could be addressed through stringent bail conditions ensuring the petitioner’s attendance and prohibiting contact with or intimidation of witnesses.

He was directed to be released on furnishing a bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of like amount, one being local.

Conditions included surrender of his passport, restriction on leaving the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction without permission, disclosure of his address and mobile number, non-contact with or intimidation of witnesses, and regular appearance before the trial court.

The trial court was authorised to cancel bail upon violation of the conditions.