TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 769
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idates to jobs in lieu of money. Although the petitioner was not named in the initial First Information Report being RC0102022A0003 (dated 07.04.2022), the petitioner was arrested by the CBI on 26.08.2025 and he was arraigned as an accused person in the original chargesheet no. 10 of 2022 dated 21.10.2022. The petitioner was neither named in the FIR being RC0102022A0004 (dated 18.05.2022) nor in the original charge sheet but named in the subsequent supplementary charge sheets filed in connection with the said case. The opposite party (the Enforcement Directorate or ED) initiated ECIR No. KLZO-II/18/2022 on 31.05.2022 (corresponding to the ML Case No. 1 of 2024) based on the above referred two CBI cases to allegedly confiscate the alleged proceeds of crime derived by committing the alleged predicate offences. Upon a purported investigation, a prosecution complaint was filed on 18.04.2024. It is also pertinent to mention that the ED had also registered ECIR-II/19/2022 (corresponding to ML Case No. 9 of 2024) on 31.05.2022, linking to two other CBI cases (RC0102022A0002 and RC0102022A0005 concerning illegal teacher appointments for classes IX-XII) and filed the prosecution complaint t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious allegations being purportedly investigated by the CBI. As of 27.04.2026, the petitioner has been in custody in connection with the instant case since 19.02.2024, totalling to approximately 797 days (or 2 years, 2 months and 7 days). On the other hand, his detention for the predicate offences, which carries punishments for more than 7 years, was 442 days in RC0102022A0003 dated 07.04.2022 and 184 days in RC0102022A0004 dated 18.05.2022, despite the allegations being more severe. The sequence and timing of the petitioner's arrests strongly suggest a deliberate and mala fide strategy by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to ensure the petitioner's continued detention. The ED registered the present case on 31.05.2022. Crucially, they took no steps or to investigate the petitioner, even while he was already in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) custody following his arrest on 26.10.2022. It is only after the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted the petitioner bail on 10.11.2023, the ED proceeded to arrest the petitioner on 19.02.2024, in connection with ML Case No. 1 of 2024. Further demonstrating this pattern, while the petitioner's bail application in ML Case No. 1 of 2024 was pend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the money as witnesses, rather than as accused, suggests a deliberate investigative bias designed to secure cooperation against the petitioner, rather than conducting an impartial investigation. The primary evidence against the petitioner in the instant case are the statements of co accused persons recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. It is a settled legal position that such statements are inadmissible against the maker of the said statements. The arrest and continued detention of the petitioner, a well-regarded businessman, appear to be a pick-and-choose tactic. The petitioner has fully and consistently cooperated with the investigation, giving his statement to the ED on no less than 10 separate occasions. Despite this, the investigation concerning his specific role shows no discernible further progress, suggesting the ED has exhausted its leads against him. The single most critical factor is that the trial has not commenced in either ML Case No. 1 of 2024 or the ML Case No. 9 of 2024, despite the petitioner's prolonged custody. The sheer number of witnesses cited by the ED, 23 in ML 1 of 2024 and 42 in ML 9 of 2024, strongly suggests that any trial, should it begin in the fore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia specifically prohibits the prosecution of a person twice for the self-same offences. The cause of action in all cases remains identical. The alleged scam, as alleged by the investigating agency, concerns irregularities in the employment process for various posts, and the alleged modus operandi is uniform, with no distinction between the cases. Consequently, there cannot be a separate cause of action. The specific allegation in respect of the predicate offences involves forgery and the facilitation of employment for unqualified individuals. Therefore, the nature of the allegation and the alleged commission of the offences are one and the same and these do not constitute two different and distinctive acts or offences. Under no circumstances is the registration of two ECIRS permissible under law. Furthermore, the conduct of the investigating agency, the Enforcement Directorate, suggests a delayed and sudden activation, specifically after the petitioner's release in the predicate offences. The petitioner was released in the predicate offences by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both cases in November 2023. Subsequent to this, the petitioner was arrested in February 2024. This actio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g agency. The ED cannot be permitted to make out a case against the petitioner, the contours of which go beyond the boundaries set by the CBI, which investigated into the alleged commission of the predicate offences. It is also submitted in this regard that the acquisition of several companies had been undertaken solely in order to overcome the restrictions pertaining to land ceiling that are applicable to the act of buying substantially large plots of land. It has also been submitted that the petitioner, as an influential person, retains the capacity to tamper with evidence and influence key witnesses if enlarged on bail. The petitioner had been on bail for a period of about 3 months subsequent to him having been enlarged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in connection with 2 out of the 4 predicate offence related FIRs/criminal cases, before he was taken into custody in connection with the instant case. There have been no allegations against him. That he had tampered with any evidence and/or threatened any witness. The petitioner stands on a similar footing to that of the above named co-accused person as far as antecedents are concerned and stands on a better footing as far as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him in this scam. These agents had facilitated jobs of various undeserving candidates in exchange for monies received from them. That the main middleman involved in this scam was accused Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy, who used to collect details of the candidates along with monies whenever these agents used to visit his office in the Salt Lake area of Kolkata. Furthermore, there are numerous candidates who have been deceived by Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy and his agents by way of promising them jobs in exchange for monies; however, they never got any job, neither was their money returned to them. As per the CBI chargesheet filed in the instant matter, it is found that manipulation in the OMR sheet/personality test score was done in respect of 937 candidates of Assistant Teacher for Class IX-X. Apart from this, 183 candidates were appointed after the expiry of the panel in Class IX-X. Similarly, it is found that manipulation in the OMR sheet/personality test score was done in respect of 907 candidates of Assistant Teacher for Class XI-XII. Further, apart from this, 39 candidates were appointed after the expiry of the panel in Class XI-XII. That it is revealed during the investigation under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was paid in cash to the sellers. Furthermore, even payments done from the bank accounts were also from the same bank accounts which had cash deposits in crores of rupees. In this regard, when CBI conducted a forensic audit of bank accounts of the accused, his wife and his companies, including M/s Shree Durga Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., it revealed that there were more than Rs. 72 crores of cash deposits in the bank accounts of Prasanna Kumar Roy and his related entities/individuals were masked under false or grossly inflated income heads such as "agriculture income," "brokerage income," "service charges," and "hotel business revenue". The accounts staff of the accused confirmed that entries were made in the tally software merely to match the cash deposits after the end of the financial year and there were no supporting documents, bills, or actual business activity for these fake incomes. That the modus of the aforementioned registration of property is corroborated by an agreement signed between Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy and three brothers, namely Shri Rabindra Nath Mondal, Shri Ahindra Nath Mondal, and Shri Dhirendra Nath Mondal, which was seized by ED during the search conducted on 18.01.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and malicious prosecution are unfounded, as the investigation has been continuous and lawful. i. Continuous and Diligent Investigation, ii. Voluminous Investigation, iii. Delay in Trial. On the allegation of delay in trial, it is submitted that the delay is neither attributable to the prosecution nor upon the Ld. Special Court. A chronology of fact/outcome before the Ld. Special Court in M.L. Case No. 01 of 2024 is provided at Letter-C enclosed herewith. Multiple ECIRs Justified: The initiation of separate ECIRS (ECIR-11/17/2022 for Group C/D staff and ECIR-II/18/2022 for Assistant Teachers) is valid because they pertain to distinct sets of predicate offences involving different categories of irregularities in recruitment, warranting independent scrutiny and investigation. It is submitted that ECIRs namely ECIR-II/17/2022 and ECIR-11/18/2022, and the corresponding ML cases, which ML Case No. 09/2024 and ML Case No. 01/2024 pertain to distinct sets of predicate offences involving different categories of irregularities in recruitment. ECIR-II/17/2022 relates to Non-Teaching posts i.e. Group C and D staff, whereas ECIR-II/18/2022 concerns the appointment of teaching staffs i.e., Assi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ict provisions of Section 45 PMLA, 2002 and the judiciary's differentiated approach towards economic offences. Mandatory Twin Conditions: Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 imposes mandatory twin conditions that must be satisfied prior to granting bail. The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The PMLA has an overriding effect over the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Given the overwhelming evidence of involvement of the present accused, it cannot be said he has satisfied this necessary threshold. Moreover, Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy is offender of money-laundering in multiple offences referred supra and hence, the antecedent does not satisfy the later condition of the said provision of law. II. Economic Offences as a Class Apart: The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that economic offences constitute a class apart and must be treated seriously, as they pose a grave threat to the financial health and economy of the country. III. Risk of Tampering: The accused herein, as an influential person controlling numerous entities, retains the capacity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made to the decisions in Senthil Balaji, 2024 SCC Online SC 2626 and Manish Sisodia, (2024) 12 SCC 660. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the present case satisfies such scrutiny. 7. That jail is an exception and bail is the rule is indubitably a jurisprudential mandate. It is much more than a mere statement of intent or a normative proposition. This principle has to be followed, albeit, after taking into account the facts of each case and the ratios regarding grounds for grant of bail as have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court over the years. 8. It is true that one of the principal accused in a predicate offence case being the Minister-in-charge was granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 18.08.2025, but the same was after the accused had remained in custody for about 3 years. However, the Hon'ble Court directed that before the bail bonds could be executed, the charges would have to be framed by the trial Court with respect to the concerned appellant against whom sanction had already been granted for the offences under the Penal Code and the PC Act and for the others under the IPC alone. The material witnesses were directed to be examined within a stipulated peri....