Bail Denied in ₹6200 Crore PMLA Case: Calcutta HC Rejects Plea Noting 444 Pending Cases Against Petitioner [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court has rejected a bail plea in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, arising from an alleged offence involving more than ₹6200 crore. The Court held that the materials collected during the investigation justified the arrest and continued detention of the petitioner, noting that the existence of 444 pending cases against him further weighed against granting bail.

The petitioner, Sanjay Surekha sought bail for an offence registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegations pertained to manipulation of financial statements, fraudulent diversion of credit facilities obtained from a consortium of banks, and routing of funds through a web of entities.

According to the Enforcement Directorate, the petitioner, as Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Concast Steel and Power Limited, allegedly created multiple shell companies, fraudulently inflated turnover to obtain bank finance, and diverted proceeds of crime amounting to ₹6210.72 crore for personal benefit and to related entities. A prosecution complaint was filed, and cognizance was taken thereafter.

Counsel for the Petitioner, led by Senior Advocate Vikram Choudhary and Senior Advocates Sabyasachi Banerjee and Ayan Bhattacharjee, contended that the arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with statutory safeguards under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. They submitted that his statement under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, recorded during custody, formed the primary basis of arrest.

The petitioner argued that proceedings in the predicate offence had been stayed by a Coordinate Bench, rendering continuation of the money-laundering case impermissible. He relied on the National Company Law Tribunal’s earlier finding rejecting allegations of fraudulent transactions and on a previous order setting aside his “fraud” classification by the bank.

Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here

Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, led by Senior Advocate Dhiraj Trivedi, submitted that the petitioner was the key architect of an extensive financial fraud involving the generation and diversion of more than ₹6200 crore, facilitated through 62 shell companies controlled by him through dummy directors, including relatives and employees. It was further submitted that the State Bank of India had reclassified the loan account as “fraud” following due process and that the petitioner had suppressed this fact.

Justice Suvra Ghosh held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail as he failed to meet the twin requirements laid down under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court noted that the arresting officer had recorded detailed “reasons to believe” and that the grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner immediately after arrest.

On examining the investigation materials, the Court found prima facie involvement of the petitioner in creating shell companies, diverting bank funds, and holding benami properties. The Court observed that investigation in complex economic offences is inherently time-consuming and held that the period of detention was not unreasonable.

The Court found that such delay did not vitiate the arrest since the statutory safeguards under Section 19 had been substantially complied with. The Court placed significant weight on the petitioner’s conduct in allegedly influencing employees and associates from judicial custody, the likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the existence of 444 pending cases against him.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates