TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 387 days (approx. 1 year, 4 months & 22 days) as of 16.04.2026. The petitioner is a senior citizen, B.A. Hons. (English), who also provided private tuition and was a Para-Teacher from 2007 to May 2024. He also ran a business in the name of M/s Mondal Enterprises (agricultural trading, with an annual turnover of Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs). His primary income included salary (Rs. 10k/month), tuition fees (from approx. 100-150 students), and other business profits. The present PMLA case stems from two CBI FIRs (RC0102022A0002 dated 05.04.2022 under Sections 120B/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, allegedly pertaining to the allegation of illegal recruitment of Group C staff and RC0102022A0005 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 120B/417/465/468/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, allegedly pertaining to the allegation of illegal recruitment of Group D staff), both registered pursuant to this Hon'ble High Court's orders. In connection with RC0102022A0002 dated 05.04.2022, the Investigating Agency concerned had filed an Original Chargesheet being numbered as Chargesheet No. 31 of 2022 dated 30.12.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20.11.2024, after 1 year, 9 months and 18 days in custody, wherein the punishment is greater. The ED's ECIR remained inactive for 851 days (over 2 years and 3 months). The ED only became active, seeking to interrogate the petitioner, after he filed a bail application on 02.08.2024 in the predicate case. On 18.11.2024, the ED sought a production warrant in connection with the instant case. Two days later, i.e., on 20.11.2024, the High Court granted him bail in the predicate case. The production warrant was issued the next day, i.e., on 21.11.2024. The petitioner was "shown arrested" on 26.11.2024 under the production warrant while still in jail custody since he was unable to furnish a bail bond in the predicate case. Most importantly, the petitioner was never provided with the opportunity of being heard at the pre cognizance stage. For the same, the petitioner had already preferred a revisional application, before this Hon'ble High Court, challenging the same (being numbered as CRR No. 4201 of 2025). Be it mentioned herein that in the course of the submissions pertaining to the instant matter, the ED had conceded to the fact that no pre-cognizance hearing under section 223 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner were accurate, the amount gained would likely be substantially greater than merely 46 lakhs. The failure to establish a clear, traceable money trail linking the petitioner to the proceeds of crime significantly weakens the prosecution's case for the PMLA offence. The mere possession of unaccounted money is not proof of a PMLA offence. The investigation concerning the petitioner and one other co-accused is substantially complete. There is no possibility of tampering with witnesses or evidence. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate has submitted and has relied on the written notes as follows. The instant case involves a deep-rooted multi-layered conspiracy pertaining to the illegal recruitment of Group 'C' and Group 'D' staff in various schools across West Bengal by flouting statutory rules and depriving deserving candidates. The investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, was initiated following the registration of FIRs by the CBI (RC0102022A0005 and RC0102022A0002) which involve scheduled offences under Section 120B and 420 of the IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceeds of crime, including Sailendra Nath Mondal (approx. Rs. 72 lakhs), Debabrata Dhali (approx. Rs. 60-70 lakhs), Sunanda Roy (approx. Rs. 29.5 lakhs), and several others. The petitioner obtained signed blank cheques and RTGS forms from these villagers to execute transfers to Prasanna Roy's shell entities. The petitioner made huge cash deposits totaling Rs. 1,09,90,100/- across five bank accounts held in his and his wife's (Archana Mondal) names. From these accounts, approximately Rs. 52.70 lakhs were directly transferred to various entities controlled by Prasanna Roy, including M/s Shree Durga Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Salasar Tiles. Mondal utilized proceeds of crime to acquire multiple immovable properties in Gaighata, Bagdah, and Helencha. These properties were intentionally registered at undervalued rates in the deeds (e.g., a property with a circle rate of Rs. 7.58 lakhs registered for only Rs. 20,000), with the balance consideration paid in unaccounted cash. Further, in connection with the investigation, a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 17/2024 dated 30.12.2024 was issued attaching properties worth approximately Rs. 47 Lakhs, of Shri Chandan Mondal. Sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he predicate offence or in the instant case under the PML Act. In these cases, huge sums of money were illegally procured from intending job seekers on the promise of granting Government jobs and then such money were siphoned off. Several jobs had to be cancelled. Lakhs were denied proper opportunity. The allegations are perhaps even more heinous than commission of offences by chit fund operators. In those cases, the offences are committed by private individuals having no official role in the Government. Here, the allegation is that by abusing their position as public servants, such serious offences were committed, which led to untold misery for so many. However, the present petitioner is not a public servant. 6. On the facts of the case, after hearing the parties this Court is not at all in a position to satisfy itself either that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Thus, the hurdle of the Section 45 of the PML Act cannot be surmounted in the present case. However, unduly long incarceration without trial may, in appropriate cases, outweigh the requirement to fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner is a grass-roots operator and may himself influence the witnesses. 11. On the other hand, the mitigating circumstances appearing in favour of the petitioner are as under:- i. The petitioner is a 62 years old man of frail health. ii. The petitioner's involvement is apparently less than most other prominent accused. iii. Although, the Enforcement Directorate could have taken the petitioner in custody soon after commencement of investigation of the predicate offences' case, they waited for a long time in taking him into custody in the PML Act case, resulting in undue additional period of incarceration in this case. iv. For the offences in the CBI case that involves greater imprisonment, the petitioner has already been granted bail by this Court after about 1 year and 9 months of custody. In the PML Act case for the present offences, the maximum sentence is of 7 years. The petitioner is already in custody for about 1 year and 6 months in connection with this case. v. The principal accused in this case being the former Minister in question was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the predicate offences' case. v....