TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anerjee. JUDGMENT UDAY KUMAR, J:- 1. This is an application for regular bail preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) by Basudeb Bagchi (68 years) and Avik Bagchi (42 years). The petitioners are the principal directors and "guiding spirits" of the 'Prayag Group' of companies and are currently in custody in connection with ML Case No. 10 of 2024 (arising out of ECIR/KLZO-I/15/2024) for offenses punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 2. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleges that the petitioners defrauded thousands of investors of approximately Rs.2,862 Crore through a deceptive v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Deputy Director [2024 INSC 739], she asserted that given the 3,500-page record and 29 witnesses, the trial has no prospect of immediate conclusion, rendering their eight-month incarceration a form of "pre-trial punishment." 7. Ms. Mohta further maintained that the petitioners' 8-odd month incarceration has effectively transitioned from a legal necessity into a form of "pre-trial punishment," violating the sacrosanct right to life and liberty. 8. Citing Tarsem Lal v. ED (2024) 7 SCC 61, Ms. Mohta argued that since the petitioners were not arrested during the initial Ranchi probe, the current arrest is a punitive attempt to circumvent settled legal principles. She maintained that the Prayag Group was a legitimate business entity and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c constitute a "class apart" (Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, 2013 7 SCC 439), necessitating custodial presence to trace the ultimate destination of the siphoned funds. 12. Therefore, Ld. Counsel concluded that the "gravity of the offense" outweighs the plea for personal liberty. It was argued that the magnitude of the financial siphoning requires the petitioners to remain in custody to ensure the integrity of the evidence and to prevent further defrauding of the public interest. As such, the petition is unmeritorious and deserves to be dismissed. 13. The primary thrust of the petitioners' challenge-that the present prosecution is hit by the bar of Article 20(2)-is, in our considered view, legally fragile. The protection against Do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aram (2019) 9 SCC 24 that the staggering magnitude of the siphoning-affecting the life savings of thousands- necessitates a stringent application of these provisions. 17. While sensitive to Article 21, we note that the petitioners' status as "Proclaimed Offenders" deals a decisive blow to their prayer. An accused who ignores judicial warrants disentitles themselves from equitable consideration. By systematically evading Non-Bailable Warrants, they have demonstrated a clear propensity to circumvent the legal process, thereby failing the "Tripod Test" as held by Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of UP (2022) 8 SCC 559, Manish Sisodia (supra), V. Senthil Balaji, Deputy Director, ED (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2626 and other cases. 18. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....discretion to release an elderly or infirm person, it is not an automatic mandate. Given the flight risk, the petitioner's health can be adequately managed through comprehensive medical supervision within the custodial framework. 22. In summation, the liberty of an individual cannot be viewed in isolation from the collective interests of thousands of defrauded investors. The petitioners' failure to discharge the "Twin Conditions," coupled with their conduct as Proclaimed Offenders, creates a formidable legal barrier to their release. 23. In light of the foregoing, we find no merit in the petition. This is not a fit case for the grant of regular bail. 24. In light of the foregoing discussions and having found no merit in the....