PMLA | Gravity Of Alleged ₹2,862 Cr Fraud, Proclaimed Offender Status & Untraced Funds Bar Grant Of Bail: Calcutta HC In Prayag Group Case
The Calcutta High Court has rejected the regular bail plea of Prayag Group directors Basudeb Bagchi and Avik Bagchi in a money laundering case involving alleged defrauding of thousands of investors to the tune of over ₹2,862 crore, holding that the gravity of the offence, their status as proclaimed offenders, and the existence of massive untraced proceeds of crime disentitle them from...
The Calcutta High Court has rejected the regular bail plea of Prayag Group directors Basudeb Bagchi and Avik Bagchi in a money laundering case involving alleged defrauding of thousands of investors to the tune of over ₹2,862 crore, holding that the gravity of the offence, their status as proclaimed offenders, and the existence of massive untraced proceeds of crime disentitle them from any relief under Section 45 of the PMLA.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar observed that economic offences involving public money form a “class apart” and must be viewed through a stricter judicial lens, particularly where the life savings of common citizens are involved. The Court emphasised that white-collar criminals cannot be allowed to treat the law with disdain and that personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be examined in isolation from the collective interests of defrauded investors.
The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the present ECIR was barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution on the ground of double jeopardy, noting that money laundering is a “continuing offence” and that fresh proceeds of crime allegedly generated after 2016 constituted a distinct cause of action. Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Bench held that the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA continues so long as a person remains involved in any activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
Significantly, the Court noted that the petitioners had been declared proclaimed offenders after evading judicial process and failing to honour non-bailable warrants. This conduct, the Bench held, dealt a decisive blow to their claim for bail, as they clearly failed the “tripod test” of flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses.
On the statutory embargo under Section 45 of the PMLA, the Court held that the so-called “twin conditions” are not procedural formalities but a legislative mandate. Given the unaccounted deficit of approximately ₹1,906 crore, the Court said it could not record a satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused were not guilty of the alleged offences.
The Bench also rejected the petitioners' reliance on recent Supreme Court rulings in Manish Sisodia and Arvind Kejriwal, noting that those cases turned on their own peculiar facts, including the absence of criminal antecedents and the specific circumstances of public office. In contrast, the present case involved deep-rooted financial conspiracies, systematic evasion of law, and large-scale public harm.
While acknowledging the health concerns of the senior citizen petitioner, the Court clarified that the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA does not grant an automatic right to bail and that adequate medical care could be ensured within the custodial framework.
Dismissing the bail plea, the Court held that the petitioners had failed to satisfy the twin conditions under the PMLA and that their custodial presence remained necessary to trace the siphoned funds.
However, to safeguard the right to a speedy trial, the Bench directed the trial court to conduct proceedings on a day-to-day basis and instructed the Enforcement Directorate to ensure the production of witnesses without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
Case: Basudeb Bagchi & Anr. v. Enforcement Directorate
Case No.: CRM (M) 932 of 2025