IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta

C.R.M. (M) 416 of 2026

Indubhusan Halder @ Dulal Halder

Vs.

Enforcement Directorate

For the petitioner : Mr. Goutam Dey

Mr. Dattatreya Dutta

Mr. Monjit Bhattacharjee

Ms. Ankita Ghosh

.....Advocates

For the ED : Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee

Mr. Adil Rashid

Ms. Sneha Santra

Ms. Snigdha Ghosh

.....Advocates

For the State : Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Ld. APP

.....Advocate

Heard lastly on : 07.09.2026

Judgment on : 08.09.2026

2

Jay Sengupta, J:

1. This is application for bail in connection with ML Case No. 4 of 2025

arising out of ECIR/ELZO-II/06/2025 dated 27.03.2025 under Section 3

read with Section 4 of the PML Act presently pending before the Learned

Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted

and has relied on the written notes as follows. The petitioner was arrested

on 13.10.2025. Azad Mallick is a foreign national operating under multiple

IDs and was involved in making fraudulent Indian ID documents, passport,

running hawala operations and other illegal activities generating illegal

proceeds of crime. Present ECIR flows from two FIRs – (I) Dum Dum 449/22

dated 18.06.2022 under Sections 14 and 14A Foreigners Act and (II)

Hanskhali PS 837/2024 dated 16.12.2024 under Sections 14A and 14C

Foreigners Act. Petitioner neither named in either of the FIRs. The FIR Dum

Dum 449/22 was chargesheeted as mistake of fact on 15.02.2023 and

Hanskhali PS 837/24 the petitioner was not chargesheeted and the person

chargesheeted pleaded guilty. The petitioner was not named in either of the

two FIRs. The petitioner was not named even in the 1

st

complaint by

Enforcement Directorate and his name only appeared on 13.06.2025 in the

1

st

supplementary complaint on 13.06.2025. He was arrested on

13.10.2025. As on date, there is no schedule offence against the petitioner.

The petitioner is a passport agent who referred clients to Dibyendu Roy, the

cybercafé owner for passport applications. He allegedly fa cilitated the

renewal of Azad Mallick‟s Indian passport facilitating the documents to

3

Dibyendu Roy through email, took commission of Rs. 20,000/ - for making

passport and Rs. 50,000/- for full set of documents from Bangladeshi

immigrantsand processed about 300-400 applications and generated

proceeds of crime to the tune of 1.5 to 2 crore. Allegedly there are certain

phone calls with the principal accused Azad. However, the contents of such

calls have not been verified and thus holds no evidentiary value. The

petitioner‟s bank statement shows transaction of Rs. 48,200/ - with the

principal accused Azad Mallick over a period of 2 years and Rs. 1.15 lacs of

with one Dibyendu Roy who is not an accused. The petitioner‟s role is at

best derivative and marginal. There is no recovery of proceeds of crime or

seizure of any document or anything other incriminating material. The

amount of Rs. 2 crore is speculative. There is no allegation that the

petitioner forged documents, created false identities or deceived any

authorities. No allegation of involvement in hawala transaction, cross border

remittance or unauthorized money transfer are there. However, some other

accused persons are on bail. The petitioner was lastly interrogated on

17.10.2025, thereafter not even once was he required for the purposed of

investigation. The petitioner is medically infirm. The health condition of the

petitioner is such that he requires constant check up and treatments, which

is not being possible while in custody. There is no criminal antecedent, no

flight risk. The petitioner is an Indian national.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate

has submitted and has relied on the written notes as follows. The petitioner,

Indubhushan Halder @ Dulal, was arrested on 13.10.2025 under Section 19

4

of the prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the present bail

application filed by the petitioner/accused warrants outright rejection in

view of the grave nature of allegations, the overwhelming incriminating

materials collected during investigation, and the statutory embargo

contained under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,

2002. The investigation conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement

(hereinafter referred to as the „ED‟) clearly reveals that the petitioner was not

a mere bystander, but an active facilitator, conduit, and beneficiary of a

large-scale racket involving procurement of forged Indian identity

documents and passports for illegal foreign nationals, including Bangladeshi

and Pakistani nationals operating under assumed Indian identities. The

petitioner is intricately linked to severe scheduled offences under Sections

14 and 14C of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which pose a direct threat to the

national and economic security of the country. The petitioner operated as a

passport agent near the Anandapur Passport Seva Kendra, actively

facilitating the illegal procurement of Indian identity documents for foreign

nationals. Investigation has revealed that Ajad Mallik @ Ahammed Hossain

Azad @ Azad Hussain, a Pakistani national illegally residing in India under

forged Indian identity documents, was engaged in procuring fraudulent

Indian passports and identity documents for illegal immigrants in lieu of

monetary consideration. Investigation further establishes that the present

petitioner was one of the principal agents operating the said racket and was

instrumental in arraigning Indian passports and forged Indian identity

documents on the basis of fabricated records and forged supporting

5

documents. The actions of the petitioner go beyond mere forgery and reflect

a deliberate attempt to exploit legal systems to destabilize the nation. The

petitioner has been directly involved in the racket of fake passport scam, the

scheduled offence being related to issuance/r enewal of passport to a

Bangladeshi/Pakistani national @ Ajad Mallik and through him, the

petitioner extended the network of procuring and manipulating various

government records for issuance of fake passports and benefitting further

proceeds of crime relating to the scheduled offence. Financial Transactions –

Through these illicit operations, the petitioner systematically generated

substantial Proceeds of Crime (POC), which falls within the ambit of Section

2(1)(u) read with Section 2(1)(v) of the PMLA, 2002. The investigation has

conclusively established the exact manner in which the petitioner financially

benefited from the scheduled offences, revealing that he charged

approximately Rs. 20,000/- for arranging an Indian Passport and Rs.

50,000/- for manufacturing a complete set of Indian identity documents.

The petitioner processed between 300 to 400 passport applications for his

clients through his associate, Dibyendu Roy, generating Proceeds of Crime

to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crores to Rs. 2 crores. These direct monetary benefits

from the scheduled offences are corroborated by banking channels; most

notably the petitioner‟s Bank of Baroda Account (A/c No. 37178100021060)

reflects a receipt of Rs. 48,200/- from the prime accused, Ajad Mallik.

Furthermore, the petitioner transacted approximately Rs. 1,15,338/- with

his accomplice Dibyendu Roy, specifically transferring Rs. 84,000/- through

banking channels for the online submission of fraudulent passport forms.

6

During the investigation, statements recorded under Section 50 of the

PMLA, 2002 provided significant testimonial evidence against the petitioner,

Indubhushan Halder @ Dulal. The prime accused, Ajad Mallik, stated that

Halder operated as a passport agent near the Anandapur Passport Seva

Kendra and used to arrange Indian passports and identity documents for

Bangladeshi nationals referred to him and charged Rs. 20,000/ - for

arranging an Indian passport and Rs. 50,000/- for a complete set of Indian

identity documents. Dibyendu Roy, proprietor of Zenith Studio, confirmed

that he processed approximately 300 to 400 bulk passport applications

referred by the petitioner, receiving a fee of Rs. 1,600/- per application from

the petitioner. Additionally, another passport agent, Shyamal Kumar Jana,

testified that the petitioner had approached him inquiring if passports could

be issued without police verification or genuine residential addresses.

Documentary and digital evidence further exposed the petitioner‟s

systematic forgery operations – The statement of Dibyendu Roy recorded

under Section 50 of the PMLA further establishes the petitioner‟s systematic

involvement in the racket. Dibyendu Roy categorically stated that

approximately 300 to 400 passport applications were referred to him by the

petitioner and that payments for such applications were received either

directly from the petitioner or through the petitioner‟s family members. It

further emerged that forged Aadhaar Cards, fabricated birth certificates and

suspicious income tax documents were supplied by the petiti oner for

processing such passport applications. Several of the applications processed

through the petitioner‟s network had adverse Police Verification Reports. The

7

magnitude of the operation itself demonstrates that the petitioner was

engaged in organized criminal activity for illegal financial gain. Investigation

further revealed that petitioner referred the vast majority of the fraudulent

applications, including 61 out of 64 applications that received adverse Police

Verification Reports (PVRs). It was found that 29 passport applications

processed by the present petitioner contained forged Income Tax Returns

(ITRs) featuring identical tax liabilities, identical E-filing acknowledgement

numbers, identical IP addresses, and unstamped SBI challans bearing the

exact same date. Furthermore, the supporting documents supplied by the

petitioner, such as Aadhaar and PAN cards, contained biologically

impossible discrepancies, such as age differences of only three months and

seven months between pairs of brothers. Fina ncial and banking records

conclusively linked the present petitioner to the generation of Proceeds of

Crime (POC) and the prime accused. The petitioner‟s Bank of Baroda

account (A/c No. 37178100021060) showed receipts totaling Rs. 48,200/ -

directly from Ajad Mallik (prime accused) and his proprietorship. The same

account reflected transactions amounting to Rs. 1,15,338/- with Dibyendu

Roy, which included Rs. 84,000/- specifically transferred for the online

submission of passport forms. Based on the processi ng of 300 to 400

applications at a rate of Rs. 50,000/- each, the investigation estimates that

petitioner generated Proceeds of Crime ranging between Rs. 1.5 crores and

Rs. 2 crores. Investigation further reveals that the petitioner facilitated the

procurement and reissuance of passports for several other Bangladeshi

Nationals illegally residing in India – One Biplab Sarkar, who admitted to

8

being born in Bangladesh and illegally entering India, specifically stated in

his statement under Section 50 of PMLA that he and his family members

had obtained passports through the petitioner and that he had paid

approximately Rs. 30,000/- in cash to the petitioner for processing such

passport applications. Similar statements have also emerged from Bipul

Sarkar and other individuals connected with the racket. The petitioner

therefore cannot claim isolated or inadvertent involvement, as the

investigation clearly reveals continuous criminal conduct and repeated

illegal monetary gain from scheduled offences. Telephonic evidence and the

petitioner‟s own conduct demonstrate his active complicity and non -

cooperation – Call Detail Records (CDRs) establish extensive communication

with co-accused individuals, revealing 557 calls between the petitioner and

the prime accused, Ajad Mallik, over a two-year period. The CDRs also show

197 calls with Biplab Sarkar, an illegal Bangladeshi immigrant whose

passport the petitioner admittedly facilitated, and 33 calls with passport

agent Shyamal Kumar Jana. That despite repeated summons issued under

Section 50 of PMLA, the petitioner deliberately avoided appearance and

instead sought anticipatory bail before the Learned Special Court as well as

before his Court, which have been rejected vide order dated 19.05.2025 in

ML No. 04 of 2025 and 04.09.2025 in CRM (A) 1856 of 2025. Such conduct

clearly reflects lack of cooperation and demonstrates that if enlarges on bail,

the petitioner is likely to obstruct investigation, influence witnesses and

tamper with evidence. The twin conditions stipulated under Section 45 of

the PMLA are clearly not satisfied in the present case. The materials

9

collected during investigation unmistakably establish the petitioner‟s active

role in facilitating procurement of forged Indian identity documents and

passports for illegal foreign nationals in lieu of monetary consideration. The

petitioner was a direct beneficiary of proceeds of crime and actively assisted

in generation and laundering of such proceeds. Therefore, it is most humbly

submitted that this Court cannot arrive at a satisfaction that the petitioner

is not guilty of the offence alleged. Further, having regard to the petitioner‟s

conduct during investigation and the organized nature of the offence, there

exists every likelihood that if enlarged on bail, the petitioner may tamper

with evidence, influence witnesses or continue similar illegal activities. The

petitioner is a habitual offender operating an organized syndicate and he

has consistently profited from similar fraudulent transactions involving

numerous other individuals in relation to the scheduled offences. For

example, the petitioner orchestrated the submission of at least 29 passport

applications enclosing forged Income Tax Returns (ITRs). These applications

featured impossible similarities, including identical tax liabilities of Rs. 50,

identical E-filing acknowledgement numbers, identical IP addresses, and

unstamped SBI challans bearing the exact same date. Further, to further

profit from his clients, the petitioner submitted forged PAN, Aadhaar, and

Voter IDs with glaring biological impossibilities. He facilitated passports for

two brothers with a fabricated age difference of merely three months, and

another set of brothers with an age difference of only seven months.

Additionally, the petitioner utilized fake PAN cards actually belonging to

different individuals, such as the case of Ashnur Haque, resulting in the

10

fraudulent issuance of multiple passports. He was also involved in

processing applications for other individuals, including Biplab Sarkar, a

Bangladeshi National and his family members. The documents submitted by

these applicants, including Income Tax Returns (ITRs), were highly

suspicious. It is now well settled that economic offences constitute a class

apart and are required to be viewed seriously. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary

v. Union of India, 2022 SCC Online SC 929, Para – 343, the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 45 of PMLA and

reiterated the mandatory nature of the twin conditions for grant of bail. It is

submitted that in this case, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing

at least three basic or foundational facts: i) First, that the criminal activity

relating to a scheduled offence has been committed; ii) Second, that the

property is question has been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by

any person as a result of that criminal activity; iii) Third, the person

concerned is, directly or indirectly, involved in any process or activity

connected with the said property being proceeds of crime. In Y.S. Jagan

Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held

that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be dealt with

seriously in matters of bail. Further, in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of

Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that

money laundering poses a serious threat to the financial system and

integrity of the nation. Further in Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal

Reddy, 2022 SCC Online SC 1862, decided on 24.02.2023 at para 32, the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that “……As per the catena

11

of decision of this Court, more particularly, observed in the case of P.

Chidambaram (supra) in case of economic offences, which are having an

impact on the society, the Court must be ve ry slow in exercising the

discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.” The present case involves illegal

foreign nationals, forged Indian identity documents, passport fraud, cross-

border ramifications and possible national security implications and

therefore stands on an even graver footing. It is submitted that the

petitioner's conduct renders him unfit for the equitable relief of bail. He

evaded the law by deliberately ignoring summons issued by the ED on five

separate occasions between April and July 2025, proving him to be a severe

flight risk who does not cooperate with investigation. Furthermore, this

Court has already applied its judicial mind to the petitioner's culpability by

dismissing his anticipatory bail vide an order dated 04.09.2025 in CRM(A)

1856 of 2025, observing that Call Detail Records (CDRs) showing 557

frequent calls between the Petitioner and the prime accused constitute

highly incriminating material. Finally, the grant of bail in the present case is

strictly barred by the twin conditions stipulated under Section 45(1) of the

PMLA, 2002. Given the voluminous documentary evidence comprising forged

ITRs, seized banking transactions, extensive Call Detail Records (CDRs), and

admissions recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA by co-accused Dibyendu

Roy and prime accused Ajad Mallik. In light of the irrefutable evidence of the

petitioner's active generation of Proceeds of Crime amounting to up to Rs. 2

crores, his habitual involvement in fabricating national identity documents

for foreign infiltrators, and the statutory embargo under Section 45 of the

12

PMLA, 2002, it is most humbly prayed that the present bail application be

dismissed in limine in the interest of justice and national security. Hence,

the issues raised by the accused-petitioner before this Court are questions

of fact that require evidentiary appraisal and therefore must be decided at

trial, not at this nascent stage; accordingly, the accused-petitioner's plea for

bail is untenable. Now, the report in final form filed in one of the predicate

offences cases has been set aside and investigation revived.

4. The State was also represented and heard.

5. I heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

application, the materials as made available by the investigating agency and

the reports filed by the Superintendent of the Correctional Home through

State from time to time.

6. The prime allegation against the present petitioner is that he became

associated with a Pakistani National and helped him prepared forged

documents of identity for several individuals. The prosecution has relied on

money trail and phone call records, among other things. The prosecution‟s

further contention is that the investigations in the predicate offences cases

were either inept or compromised one. Therefore, the present petitioner was

not even named as an accused in the FIRs there. In fact, a report in final

form was submitted by the investigating agency of the State in one such

case. Now, a revision challenging filing of such final report has been allowed.

7. It is true that the materials made available by the investigating agency

even as against the present petitioner are such that the restriction contained

13

in Section 45 of the PML Act cannot be surmounted, on merits. However, the

Hon‟ble Apex Court has, in a catena of decisions, held that prolonged

incarceration of an accused in custody can outweigh the rigors of Section 45

of the PML Act in appropriate cases. A reference may be made to the

decisions in Senthil Balaji, 2024 SCC Online 2626 and Manis h Sisodia,

(2024) 12 SCC 660.

8. Although, the prosecution may contend that the investigations by the

State were tainted, it is a fact that at present, a report in final form was filed

in one such case. However, now the ED‟s challenge to it has apparently been

accepted. It is also very strange indeed that the present petitioner with the

kind of allegations that he is facing in the present case is not an accused in

any of the predicate offences case. So, as of now, it appears that the only

admissible issue as against the present petitioner would be parking of

tainted money.

9. Most importantly, it is necessary to advert to the medical condition of

the petitioner in the instant case. As per the latest report submitted by the

Superintendent of the Presidency Correctional Home dated 28.06.2026, the

present petitioner is aged about 57 years and he has been suffering from

multiple ailments including chest pain, shortness of breath, cough, and

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Before his admission to the

correctional facility, he had been receiving treatment at the Apollo Hospital

since 2022. Following his admission to the Presidency Correctional Home on

18.10.2025, he was placed in the Chest Ward of the PCH Hospital. He was

referred to the Respiratory Medicine OPD of the SSKM Hospital on several

14

occasions i.e., on 30.10.2025, 20.11.2025, 18.12.2025, 15.01.2026,

12.02.2026, 19.02.2026, 19.03.2026 and 07.05.2026. On 07.05.2026 he

was transferred to Kalyani Sub Correctional Home as per Court order. He

was admitted at the AIIMS, Kalyani on 09.05.2026 to undergo certain

investigations. He was again admitted at the AIIMS, Kalyani from

11.05.2026 to 12.05.2026 with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease. Upon discharge, he was prescribed multiple medications

and advised to continue breathing exercises as part of the treatment plan.

On 15.05.2026 he was transferred from the Kalyani S.C. Home to the

Presidency Correctional Home. Afterwards, he visited the SSKM Hospital for

vaccination. But, he did not take the regular vaccine as he insisted on

taking a particular brand namely, Vaxigrip. The petitioner is undergoing

treatment for his ailments, as per the advice of the AIIMS, Kalyani under the

care of the PCH Hospital.

10. The above facts clearly points towards a chronic illness of the

petitioner for which while in custody, he had to remain in hospital on two

occasions, although once under Court‟s order, and had to visit the hospital

OPD on numerous occasions.

11. Considering the above, the fact that the petitioner is suffering from the

chronic illness of Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder for which he had to be

admitted in hospital and had to attend the medical facility numerous times

even while in custody and the fact that he is in custody for nearly 10

months, although he had not been made an accused in the predicate

15

offences cases, I am inclined to allow the application for bail of the

petitioner.

12. This order is being passed, among other things, upon considering the

serious medical condition of the petitioner and may not have any bearing on

the custody of the other co-accused.

13. The petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of

Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be

local, to the satisfaction of the Learned CJM, Calcutta and on further

condition that –

(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the

learned Trial Court forthwith;

(ii) The petitioner shall not travel abroad without the leave

of the Learned Trial Court;

(iii) He shall intimate his mobile phone number/s and his

place of residence to the investigating officer as well as to

the learned Trial Court;

(iv) He shall not intimidate witnesses or try to contact them

in any manner whatsoever during pendency of the trial;

(v) He shall appear before the learned Trial Court regularly;

(vi) In case of any violation of this order, the Trial Court

shall at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without

any further reference to this Court.

16

14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to

the parties, upon completion of requisite formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)