Tax Evasion vs Exortion: Calcutta HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to EX MLA in Rs. 100 cr Unexplained Asset case [Read Order]
The court made a distinction between the two petitioners, weighing the seriousness of the claims against the personal circumstances of the accused.
![Tax Evasion vs Exortion: Calcutta HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to EX MLA in Rs. 100 cr Unexplained Asset case [Read Order] Tax Evasion vs Exortion: Calcutta HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to EX MLA in Rs. 100 cr Unexplained Asset case [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/06/26/2141444-calcutta-hc-grants-anticipatory-bail-taxscan.webp)
The Calcutta High Court observed that the mere non-disclosure of income or transfer of properties without cancellation of registered documents does not per se attract penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as unexplained assets and disproportionate income are essentially within the domain of the Income Tax authorities. The Calcutta High Court grant bail to former MLA citing her role as a mother to a four-month-old infant, while rejecting bail for her husband over the Rs 100 Crore Unexplained Asset case.
The statement was made by the Single Judge Bench of Justice Jay Sengupta while hearing anticipatory bail applications submitted by Smt. Aditi Munshi, former MLA and her husband, Debraj Chakraborty, sitting Councillor of Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. The couple has a FIR against them over acquisition and disposal of assets worth more than Rs. 100 crore before polls.
Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, who appeared for the petitioners, submitted that the criminal prosecution was a political vendetta under the garb of an economic offence. He argued that the authorities say that the petitioners obtained the properties from secret income and quickly disposed of the properties to show a “cleaner” statement of assets before the Election Commission, transfer of property is not a criminal act.
The defence maintained that penalising a person for not revealing income is entirely the domain of the Income Tax Department. The contention was that since the property transactions were carried out through registered instruments, and without those documents being legally set aside, it was useless for the state to attribute criminal intent under the BNS purely on the claims of tax evasion or undeclared riches.
However, the State and the de facto complainant proved convincingly before the Court that the case had crossed the limit of simple tax evasion and had entered the domain of organised crime. Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumdere filed a memo of evidence on how the petitioners with a total stated income of just over Rs. 1 crore in five years obtained assets of close to Rs. 100 crores.
AAG further highlighted how the accused persons are using the unexplained income to fund the extortion and land grabbing gang. The Court was shown allegations from the case diary that victims were forced to give up properties, typically worth Rs. 60 lakhs or more, for a fraction of the value (Rs. 10 lakhs, for instance) through development agreements. Further, several statements of labour contractors were made public about an alleged “protection money” scheme where extortion demands were increased from Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs. 75 lakhs, pushing enterprises to shut down.
Also Read:Mechanical Attachment u/s 83 of GST without Formation of Opinion Unsustainable: Gauhati HC De-Freezes Bank A/c [Read Order]
The AAG told the Court that the accused had allegedly utilised “colourable instruments”, benami transactions and gifts to suddenly liquidate properties including five acres in Kalimpong for barely Rs. 19 lakh just prior to filing their election affidavits. The probe is also looking into adding the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice Sengupta, taking into account the comments, decided that the first charges of possessing undeclared properties indicated towards violations of tax and election laws. The Court, however, considering the particular allegations of land grabbing, extortion and coercion, held that the husband’s involvement in the organised gang needed jail interrogation.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Debraj Chakraborty. However, taking into account the seriousness of the charges against the two and that Aditi Munshi is a mother of a four month old newborn with less direct claims of extortion against her, the Court granted her anticipatory bail.
The former MLA was granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two local sureties but with strict conditions. She was to surrender her passport, cooperate with the tax and criminal investigation, stay away from the jurisdiction of Baguiati Police Station and not to contac
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
t any witnesses.



