In a bail application by Sujit Bose, a former Minister of the Government of West Bengal and former Vice-Chairman of South Dum Dum Municipality under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in matter pending before the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta wherein his plea for bail had been rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh rejected the bail application.
The investigation originated from a High Court order dated 21-04-2023, which directed the CBI to register a predicate FIR concerning the municipal recruitment scam. The petitioner contended that the CBI registered a regular case in which the petitioner was not named and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an Enforcement Case Information Report on 11.05.2023, a copy of which was never supplied to the petitioner.
The CBI’s main charge-sheet dated 30-06-2024 confined the conspiracy to 29 illegal appointments, and its supplementary charge-sheet dated 30-12-2024 also did not name the petitioner. The ED issued its first Section 50 summons only in April 2026, after which the petitioner approached the High Court, appeared on 01-05-2026 and on 11-05-2026, after which he was arrested.
ED submitted that Sujit Bose was involved in the offence of money-laundering by possessing and projecting proceeds of crime through his personal accounts and entities controlled by him, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3 of PMLA. It was stated that investigation had revealed multiple laundering fronts involving proceeds of crime of around Rs. 20.40 crore, with further investigation still continuing. Upon comparison of the seized data with multiple recruitment records, ED claimed that several candidates recommended by the petitioner were actually appointed in the South Dum Dum Municipality.
Further, it was argued that municipal recruitments were carried out illegally with money being collected from candidates after selection and shared with municipal office-bearers. ED pointed to the acquisition of four floors from Ganpati Developers with Rs. 1,11,99,182 unpaid, the alleged suppression of that investment in the 2021 election affidavit, and cash deposits of Rs. 8,09,59,210 layered as restaurant receipts. It also relied on sham shareholding transfers and unsecured loans from non-existent entities, and on structured payments to the petitioner and his children by Radiant Enterprises without corresponding services. It was argued that the twin conditions of Section 45 were squarely attracted and that the petitioner’s political stature and the dependence of witnesses on him created a real likelihood of tampering.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s main emphasis was on his arrest three years after the ECIR and on his continued detention after the supplementary prosecution complaint was filed, which stated that the investigation for the arrestee was complete. However, the Court found force in the ED’s submission on the justification for custody as during August to September 2026, while the petitioner was in custody, immovable assets belonging to the petitioner and his family members were traced. Further, the Court stated that information had been shared with the CBI under Section 66(2) of PMLA, 2002 regarding the number of undeserving candidates being recommended by the petitioner for being employed in the municipality.
It was held that a vital stage of investigation was in progress as CBI had commenced further investigation after informing the Special Court. Referring to Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306, the Court opined that the petitioner had failed to overcome the rigors of Section 45 PMLA Act and rejected the prayer for bail. Thus, the petition was dismissed.
