IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta

C.R.M. (R) 122 of 2025

Sonu Kumar Thakur

Vs.

Enforcement Directorate

For the petitioner : Mr. Manjit Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arkaprabho Roy

.....Advocates

For the ED : Mr. Adil Rashid

Ms. Sneha Pramanick

Ms. Aparna Sakar

Ms. Snigdha Ghosh

.....Advocates

Heard lastly on : 14.08.2026

Judgment on : 17.08.2026

2

Jay Sengupta, J:

1. This is an application for bail filed in connection with M.L. Case No.

08 of 2025 arising out of ECIR No. KLZO -II/03/2024 dated 01.02.2024

under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 19 of the PMLA, presently pending

before the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta.

2. Earlier, the application was heard by this Court on a few occasions.

The Investigating Officer had to be asked to appear to clarify certain facts.

Adjournments also had to be granted to the parties. After change of

determination, the matter was specifically assigned to this Court on

27.07.2026 and the same was heard again.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has

submitted and has relied on the written notes as follows. As per the case of

the ED, the petitioner was arrested from his house at Nutan Para, Jalpai

More, Siliguri (M Corp) at 07.15 pm on 03.06.2025. The nearest Magistrate

was the Learned ACJM, Siliguri which is just approximately 3 kms away.

Instead, he was produced before the Learned CJM, Jalpaiguri which was

approximately 43 kms away at 9.00 pm on the same day. Memo of arrest

does not indicate place of arrest [Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash

Sharma, 2025 INSC 141]. It is pleaded by the learned counsel appearing for

the ED that the same was done as no Magistrate was available at Siliguri.

The document titled “Grounds of Arrest” is signed by the Mr. Sumit Rai,

Assistant Director, KLZO-II, Directorate Enforcement and the petitioner

3

himself - having no proof of intimation of grounds to friends, relatives or

such other person as may be nominated by the petitioner. Hence, violation

of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Article 22 of the Constitution of

India as such procedure is not a mere formality [Vihaan Kumar vs State of

Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799]. In the instant case, such burden is not

discharged and even in the Affidavit-in-Opposition, no pleading was made

clarifying such contention. Instead, there is categorical admission-“Further,

as the petitioner was arrested from the search premises of his residence, his

family members were already aware and implicitly informed of his arrest”.

Such line of averment and submission, when there is specific case is made

out and grievance is agitated that the arrest of the applicant is illegal due to

violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, make it obvious that the

investigating authority is trying to reduce the mandate of Article 22 to a

mere formality. More importantly, the averments of the Affidavit -in-

Opposition as well as the written notes of argument submitted by the

Opposite Party only clarifies about intimation of the fact of arrest not

intimation of the ground or reason thereof. When violation of Article 22 of

the Constitution of India is pleaded by an arrestee, the burden of proof is

upon the police officials to show that grounds of arrest were communicated

to the arrestee and his relative or friend [Vihaan Kumar]. In the instant case,

such burden is not discharged and even in the Affidavit-in-Opposition, no

pleading was made clarifying such contention. It states: “The arrest memo

itself specifies that intimation of arrest was duly made to the relative of the

petitioner ………Details”, which barely discharges the burden of proof upon

4

the arresting authority as discussed above. In the event when arrest is made

in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, bail can be granted

without going into the merits of the case. Herein bail becomes right,

irrespective of the merits of the case. It is the allegation that the petitioner

had 6 accounts by his name in which there were turnover of crores of

Rupees; additionally, there were 519 mule accounts which were opened and

controlled by him. However, the signature on the panchnama is not clear as

to who became the witness of seizure. The panchnama does not indicate the

identity of the seizure witnesses and as such the claim of arrest and seizure

happening at the place of residence is dubious in nature. Hence, the seizure

itself is ambiguous. If it is claimed by the ED that arrest was made in

compliance of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, and as such the

learned CJM, Jalpaiguri is indeed the nearest Magistrate, then the place of

arrest is definitely not the residence of the petitioner, as being claimed by

the ED. Following, the panchnama, dated 03.06.2025 also becomes nothing

but a sham document. All allegedly incriminating material against the

petitioner is documentary in nature and as such there is no scope for

tampering with evidence. Offence under PMLA, even though serious in

nature, yet may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable

with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the

NDPS, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnapping for ransom, mass

violence, etc. The petitioner is in custody for more than 1 year and there is

hardly any progress in trial and as such the petitioner’s prayer for bail can

also be considered on the ground of delay in trial. Bail has been granted in

5

the predicate offence by the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate. Plea has

been taken by the ED that the arrestee was taken to learned CJM,

Jalpaiguri because nearest Magistrate as Siliguri was not available.

However, Hon’ble Division of the Bombay High Court in Vachhalabai vs

State of Maharashtra, [(2020) 1 Bom CR (Cri) 263] upon discussing the

Constitutional Assembly Debates at length opined that the provision like

that of Section 187(6) of BNSS, 2023 [corresponding to 167(2A) CrPC which

is applicable in PMLA cases by virtue of the judgement of V. Senthil Balaji vs

State [2023 SCC Online SC 934] are safeguards for protection of

fundamental rights mentioned in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and

that they need to be strictly followed by the officers effecting arrest. If there

is a material to infer that there was actual arrest, but after the arrest the

accused was not taken before the nearest Magistrate and he was taken far

away from that place for production before the concerned Magistrate, the

moment the accused is taken out of the jurisdiction of nearest Magistrate,

his detention becomes unauthorized and illegal. Such detention will not

become legal only because subsequently the accused is produced before the

Magistrate having jurisdiction to try or inquire into the offence within 24

hours of the actual arrest. If that procedure is not followed and accused is

picked up from a place over which the police station has no jurisdiction and

he is taken to the place over which the police has jurisdiction and he is

taken to the place over which the police has jurisdiction, inference become

easy that the accused was taken away from the first place only by illegally

detaining him. Argument has been made that the judgement of Mihir Rajesh

6

Shah vs State of Maharashtra [(2006) 1 SCC 500] distinguishes from Vihaan

Kumar judgement (supra) on the point of requirement of furnishing written

grounds of arrest to the family member of the arrestee. However, that it not

case. In the said judgement, argument was specifically made of non -

furnishing of ground of arrest to the arrestee and the Hon’ble Apex Court

noted that it is mandatory to furnish written grounds of arrest to arrestee;

interestingly, reliance was made on Vihaan Kumar judgement (supra) and

heavily on Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India, (2004) 7 SCC 576. In para no.

26, while reproducing portions of the judgement of Pankaj Bansal (supra)

the Hon’ble Court noted that in that case the situation was that though ED

claimed that witnesses were present and certified that the grounds of arrest

were read out and explained to him in Hindi, that is neither here nor there

as he did not sign the document. It was held, upon placing reliance upon V.

Senthil Balaji vs State [(2004) 3 SCC 51], that non-compliance in this regard

would entail release of the arrested person straightaway. In the case in

hand, the situation is similar, as though ED claims that written grounds of

arrest were provided to the family member of the accused, is neither here

nor there as no signature is there on the document. The judgement further

discusses para no. 43 of Pankaj Bansal (supra). It states the purpose of the

mandate. The Hon’ble Apex Court noted that the reason is the constitutional

objective underlying such information being given to the arrested person.

Conveyance of this information is not only to apprise the arrested person of

why he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek legal

counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the Court under Section 45 to

7

seek release on bail, if he/she so chooses. Similar reasoning is given in para

no. 42 of the Vihaan Kumar judgement (supra) as well wherein it was stated

that the arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate

and easy access to the legal process for securing his release, which would

otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominated persons

by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained

person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the

grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in add ition to his relatives as

mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person

to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary

opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to

secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualizing the

fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution. Interestingly, in the case in hand, the petitioner was produced

before the Learned City Sessions Judge, Calcutta on 04.06.2025 but till

28.07.2025 the petitioner was represented by an advocate appointed by the

LADCS, Kolkata as the family members of the petitioner was not aware of

any fact which otherwise could have been informed through written grounds

of arrest. On 28.07.2025, finally his choice of counsel was engaged by his

family members, upon getting to know about the entire situation on their

individual effort, and on the same day prayer for bail was made which was

rejected on 13.08.2025, impugned order in this application for bail before

this Hon’ble Court. This uncalled for situation is also frowned upon in the

judgement of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), when Vihaan Kumar judgement

8

(supra) was relied upon and not distinguished. Arguably, such action of the

part of arresting authority also violates right of the petitioner to consult, and

to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice as enshrined under

Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. On 27.05.2026, the Hon’ble

Division Bench of Allahabad High Court delivered a judgement in Habeas

Corpus Writ Petition No. – 218 of 2026. The Learned Additional Advocate

General appearing on behalf of State-respondents therein referred to a few

judgements (as can be seen in para no. 23) of the Apex Court including one

Kanu Sanyal vs District Magistrate, Darjeeling, [(1973) 2 SCC 674,

Constitutional Bench] by relying which he argued that in dealing with the

petition for habeas corpus, the Court is to see whether the detention on the

date the application is made to the Court is legal, if nothing more has

intervened between the date of the application and the date of the return of

the rule. In habeas corpus proceedings the Court is to have regard to the

legality or otherwise of the detention at the time of return and not with

reference to the initiation of proceedings. The legality of detention on the

date of hearing of the habeas corpus petition is relevant and not the date of

initial detention. He further argued that the subsequent judgements like

that of Vihaan Kumar (supra), Pankaj Bansal (supra), and Mihir Rajesh

Shah (supra) are hit by the doctrine of stare decisis since these judgements

have been passed without considering the earlier binding precedents of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court itself and are thereof per incuriam and have no

binding effect. The Court relying upon such submission went on to hold the

said judgments are not binding precedents because they are hit by doctrine

9

of stare decisis, as the judgments have not considered earlier law laid down

by the Apex Court in the case of earlier judgments in the cases of Kanu

Sanyal (supra) and others. The earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court have laid emphasis on considering the legality of detention order at

the time of return of rule and have held that if the initial detention order

was not in accordance with law, but at the time of consideration of the

petition a new detention order was passed which was in accordance with law

the earlier order of detention is not required to be considered since it has

lost its relevance. However, the said judgement was wrongly cited as the

discussed ratio was of a subsequent judgement passed by the Hon’ble

Division Bench of the Apex Court With same parties, being Kanu Sanyal vs

District Magistrate, Darjeeling, [(1974) 4 SCC 141], as not by the

Constitutional Bench. In the referred constitutional bench judgement, the

issue was whether at the time of hearing a Habeas Corpus Petition,

production of the body person so detained necessary for its disposal after

issue of rule nisi. Summarily, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court declared

multiple judgements passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Apex

Court, while relying upon another judgement passed by the Hon’ble Division

Bench of the Apex Court perceiving it as a jud gement of Constitutional

Bench. Interestingly, in 1980, a 5-Judges Bench of Karnataka High Court

[in Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi vs West Patent Press Co. Ltd., AIR 1980 Kant

92] while answering a full Bench reference, decided that if two decisions of

the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and one of

them is by a larger Bench, the decision of the larger Bench, whether it is

10

earlier or later in point of time, should be followed by High Court consist of

equal number of Judges, the later of the two decisions should be followed by

High Courts and other Courts. So, in this case, recent judgments liberalizing

conditions of Article 22 should have been followed and not the earlier ones.

Be that as it may, the above-mentioned judgements are in respect of legality

of detention in the date when the petition of Habeas Corpus is heard by the

Hon’ble Court which is the narrow scope of a Habeas Corpus Petition.

However, the matter at hand relates to bail wherein the initial arrest can

also called into question as the later has wider ambit. Upon inquiry, it was

further submitted that the petitioner was shown arrested in the predicate

offences case on 02.02.2026 and was produced virtually. Bail was granted

on the same day as chargesheet had been filed.

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

and has relied on the written notes as follows. The accused namely Sonu

Kumar Thakur was arrested on 03.06.2025 at 7.15 pm from his premises.

That the accused was arrested beyond Court hours henceforth the

application under Section 187 of BNSS 2023 seeking transit remand was

allowed by the then available Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Section 19

– “(3) Every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall, within twenty four

hours, be taken to a Special Court or Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan

Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction.” The requirement of

Section 19 was duly complied with the arrest memo is duly signed by the

uncle of the accused namely Santosh Kumar Thakur. T he accused Sonu

Thakur is shown absconder in the charge sheet bearing No. 574/23 dated

11

26.07.2023 thereafter ED was directed to inform the predicate agency which

was duly done by the letter dated 06.01.2026. The accused has admitted his

abscondence in the bail petition, thereby reinforcing the gravity of his

conduct and his criminal intent (mens rea). The proceeding under PMLA is

standalone and is independent of predicate offence, various ruling with

regard the same are of High Court and Apex Court. That no ne of the

accused in the instant matter who have been arrested have got bail and

various bail application filed by them were all rejected upon contest. In the

instant case, the petitioner has miserably failed to discharge the burden

placed upon him under Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA. He has neither been able

to prima facie demonstrate that he is not guilty of the alleged offence, nor

has he shown that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The

rigors of Section 45 (1) of PMLA, thus, stand unmet. Furthermore, the

petitioner's antecedents, the gravity and nature of the offence and the

magnitude of the economic crime warrant that he is required to satisfy the

"TRIPOD TEST" to adjudicate the bail petition, which includes - Gravity of

the offence and its societal impact: Severity of punishment, if convicted:

Likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or

fleeing from justice. Applying this test, it is evident that the present case

involves serious economic offences under the PMLA, which have a direct

nexus with the generation and laundering of proceeds of crime. The gravity

and societal impact are substantial, and the punishment prescribed under

the PMLA is stringent. There is also a real and plausible apprehension that

the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, may interfere with the ongoing

12

investigation or influence material witnesses, given his resources and past

conduct. In addition to bank accounts, the racket also procured SIM cards

in the names of various individuals by offering them monetary incentives.

Subsequently the credential of the bank accounts and SIM cards were

transferred abroad particularly to Dubai where they are used to carry out

various illegal activities including the collection and layering of proceeds

generated through illegal online betting, gambling and other criminal

activities. During the search, more than 200 bank account numbers were

found from his possession. After the arrest of Sonu Thakur, his mobile

phone was analysed and from his mobile phone a number of mule accounts

(519 in number) were recovered which were directly involved with betting

activities. Total 519 accounts were frozen between 10.06.2025 and

13.06.2025 having balances of approx. Rs. 8.20 crores frozen vide freezing

orders dated 10.06.2025 to 13.06.2025. From the list of mule accounts, the

6 mule accounts were in the name of Sonu Thakur. The freezing orders of

ED were confirmed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated

07.11.2025. Thus, - a. Sonu Thakur was found to be actively involved in

provisioning of mule accounts to various illegal online betting panels; b. He

had a chain of sub-agents who were luring persons to open mule accounts

on commission basis; c. He was also found to be running a betting panel; d.

He was direct recipient of proceeds of crime given to him for provisioning of

mule accounts. The Prosecution complaint details many mule accounts

which have given entry to Sonu Thakur for his services; e. Despite being

unemployed, his accounts were having a turnover of Rs 13 crores which is

13

the money he has received for his services as a mule account provider; f. He

has flight risk as he has a history of being absconder in the Police

Chargesheet. ED by its rigorous efforts found him; g. Furthermore, if given

bail, he will continue to provide mule accounts to various betting panels. He

even has a flight risk; h. Upon his bail, he may try to influence other co-

accused and witnesses to change their testimonies. On the contrary, his

past conduct reveals a real and imminent risk of absconding, particularly

since he has travelled abroad on multiple occasions and has active

associates operating the betting racket from Dubai. If released on bail, there

is every likelihood that he will abscond to Dubai and continue his

involvement in such illegal activities. In the aforesaid matter cognizance was

already taken on 25.08.2025 and all the relied upon documents has already

been served upon all the accused person. Only inspection of the same has to

be done and charges are to be framed. Henceforth, it is most humbly prayed

that the accused kindly may not be released till the charges are framers as

the entire proceeds of crime in the matter has not been traced out and there

is a possibility of filing further supplementary complaint. During the course

of investigation, 2 accounts were found. From 08.03.2022 to 01.11.2022,

the account of M/s Wixeta International Private Limited had a turnover of

Rs. 1,98,00,21,199 (Rs.198 crores approx). From 09.05.2022 to 01.11.2022,

the account of M/s Duston Salt Refine Pvt. Ltd. has had a turnover of Rs.

97.68 crores. Thus, it can be termed that an amount of Rs.296 crores

(approximately) was used for betting related activities by use of these 2

accounts. Thus, the accounts were used for hawala and entry transactions

14

as well. Furthermore, there were certain accounts which have been

unearthed during the investigation. The accounts were opened with the help

of various associates of Sonu Thakur. All the directors hail from the same

locality of Natun Para which is a hub of opening of mule accounts. Sonu

Thakur is also from Natun Para and he recruited the below individuals in

liaison with another accused named Abhishek Bansal. Further, it is revealed

bank account of one trust namely Natun Para Kali Bari Charitable Trust

having trustees namely viz. Ajit Kumar Mahato (cousin of Sonu Thakur),

Souvik Poddar, Sujit Adhikary and Mantosh Mahato has been opened in

RBL bank. Upon the scrutiny of the bank account bearing account number -

409001882859 with RBL Bank in the name of Natun Para Trust, it is

revealed that the account has total turnover of Rs. 52.31 crores. Further,

Investigation revealed that the said trust maintains bank accounts with Yes

Bank also. Upon analysis of the bank account bearing account no.

121188700000088, it is revealed that the account has turnover of more

than Rs. 651.93 crores. The huge turnover is betting proceeds. The bank

accounts of the entities were scrutinized which have surfaced during the

investigation. Given Sonu Thakur's direct/indirect association with the

above mentioned accounts, it is highly likely that he may influence the

testimonies of other individuals associated with these accounts. The main

contention of the petitioner herein was that the judgement of Vihaan Kumar

vs State of Haryana (2025 (5) SCC 799 it mentioned in paragraph 42. Hence,

the requirement of communication of ground of arrest in writing is not only

to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such person as

15

may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the

mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective failing

which, such arrest may be rendered illegal”. In reply to the same the

opposite parties herein like to rely on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court

in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra and Others (2026) 1 SCC 500

wherein not only the judgment of Vihaan Kumar has been considered but

also other judgments such as Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India 2024 (7) SCC

576, Prabir Purkayastha Vs State 2024 (8) S CC 254 has also been

considered and specially mentioned in paragraphs – “14***** This Court in

Pankaj Bansal (Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576: (2024) 3

SCC (Cri) 450] observed that ideally grounds of arrest should be informed in

writing, however, in Vihaan Kumar [Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana,

(2025) 5 SCC 799: (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 762] it was acknowledged that it might

not be practical to provide grounds of arrest to an accused in each and every

case in writing and thus clarified that there is no mandate to communicate

the grounds of arrest in writing. Nevertheless, for investigations under

special statutes such as Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA")

or UAPA, this Court has specifically held that such grounds of arrest be

communicated in writing. The decisions in Pankaj Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v.

Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576: (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450] and Prabir

Purkayastha (Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254:

(2024) 3 SCC (Cr) 573] need to be read harmoniously with Vihaan Kumar

[Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799: (2025) 2 SCC (Cri)

762] which provides as a general rule that grounds of arrest are not

16

mandated to be communicated in writing. Subsequently, in Vihaan Kumar

[Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799: (2025) 2 SCC (Cri)

762], this Court underscored that a failure to comply with the requirement

of informing the grounds of arrest soon after the arrest would render the

arrest illegal. The Court referred to the above-mentioned decisions of this

Court and observed that although the ideal mode of communication of

grounds of arrest is to provide such grounds in writing, there is no such

statutory requirement to provide such grounds in writing. The Court noted

that it may not be practical to communicate grounds of arrest in writing in

every situation, but if such a course is followed, the controversy about non-

compliance will not arise at all. The relevant portion of Vihaan Kumar

[Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799: (2025) 2 SCC (Cri)

762] is referred to herein. In conclusion, it is held that: The constitutional

mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all

offences under all statutes including offences under IPC, 1860 (now BNS

2023); The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the

arrestee in the language he/she understands; In case(s) where, the arresting

officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on

or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated

in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior

to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate;

In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand

would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free. In

addition to it as per the judgement main contention is the arrestee and/or

17

as person should be informed so that appropriate steps can be taken by the

accused. Herein its duly signed by him and the Search and seizure list

clearly mentions that when the accused was taken into custody he had

nothing with him on the other hand or the documents including grounds of

arrest, reasons to believe and other documents bears the signature of the

accused which clearly shows that the same was handed over to the relative

by the accused person. Recently Allahabad, High Court on 27.05.2026 in

(Neeraj And Another Versus State of U.P. and Another) distinguishing

Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana in paragraph 19 onwards and specifically

in paragraph 69 has stated that “********Therefore, in the absence of any

fetters on the right of accused to approach this court challenging his initial

arrest, a pandora’s box has been opened and the petitions are being filed

after cognizance on charge sheet, framing of charge and remand orders

under Sections 209 and 309 Cr.P.C and also during recording of evidence in

trial.” Finally in paragraph 88 the Hon'ble Court observed- “88. On the basis

of above considerations, our conclusions are as follows :- (i) A habeas corpus

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be preferred

by an accused before the court, at the earliest, if his initial remand is illegal

and consequently his detention is illegal; (ii) The filing of habeas corpus

petition shall not be affected by rejection of bail application of the accused

by the trial court only. Rejection of bail application of accused by High Court

or the Supreme Court, would be a bar to entertainment o f habeas corpus

writ petition before Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court since the

bail application has been considered by the Bench of Hon'ble High Court or

18

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it would not be proper for another

coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

where the bail application was rejected, to entertain a habeas corpus writ

petition by another Bench of the same court. It will amount to appeal/review

of the judgment passed by the Bench deciding bail applic ation of the

accused; (iii) However, once the charge sheet is submitted against an

accused under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C/154(2) B.N.S.S and judicial order of

cognizance is passed thereon by the competent court, the right of the

accused to prefer habeas corpus writ petition on the ground that the initial

judicial order of remand under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C/187(2) B.N.S.S passed

by the Magistrate was illegal would not be maintainable, since after the

passing of the second judicial order of the cognizance of offence on the

charge sheet by the court would become relevant and not the initial order of

remand. The remedy of assailing such an order of cognizance is provided

under the statute and filing of habeas corpus petition would not be

permissible; (iv) After the cognizance is taken on the charge sheet submitted

by the investigating officer, the challenge to arrest of accused can be made

on the grounds of violation of Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of

India by resorting to statutory remedy of bail provided under the statute; (v)

The remedy of filing habeas corpus petition will also not be available to an

accused after the order of committal under Section 209 Cr.P.C./232 B.N.S.S

or remand by the trial court under Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 B.N.S.S; (vi)

Even after framing of charge as per Section 228 Cr.P.C./240 Cr.P.C by the

court, which is also a judicial order amenable to statutory challenge, the

19

remedy of habeas corpus cannot be availed by an accused. It was further

contended by the accused person charged arrested around 7:15 PM on

03.06.2025, from Siliguri but he was not produced before the Siliguri bench

but before the Jalpaiguri bench which was 45 km away. With regard to the

same it is contended that the accused was arrested beyond the normal court

hours and was produced before the bench available that time. In addition to

it no prejudice was caused to the accused as the accused was presented

before the Special Court within 24 hours that is on 04.06.2025. The order

taken from Jalpaiguri Bench was a precau tionary measure in case the

prosecution fails to produce the accused before the PMLA Court within 24

hours. However, in the present case the accused were produced before the

special Court within 24 hours. Hence, the contention taken by the

differences was frivolous. It was further submitted on behalf of the ED that

the petitioner was the kingpin of the scam. Till now, Rs. 8.2 crores has been

attached from the petitioner. About 1000 more bank accounts and a sum of

about Rs. 2000 crores are still to be assessed. Although complaint has been

filed, further investigation is going on. A co-accused has absconded and fled

to Dubai. The petitioner too has a residence in Dubai and is at flight risk.

Reliance is further placed on decisions reported at (2024) 13 SCC 788 and

(2024) 20 SCC 545. Charges are to be framed soon.

5. I heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the application,

the affidavits, the materials collected during investigation and the written

notes of submissions.

20

6. It appears from the records that on 23.10.2022 Bhaktinagar Police

Station Case No. 1146 of 2022 was started under Sections 417, 419, 420,

467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the West

Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act, 1957. The crux of the

allegation was the accused were indulging in illegal betting and gambling.

Afterwards, the proceeds of crime were allegedly laundered by creating

different layers of mule bank accounts and even siphoned off abroad

through hawala. On 01.02.2024, ECIR No. KLZO-II/03/2024 was registered.

On 03.06.2025, a freezing order was issued for freezing the bank balance

laying in 107 bank accounts and 6 debit/credit cards vide authorization no.

69 of 2025 dated 02.06.2025. Searches were conducted. The petitioner was

arrested from his house on 03.06.2025 purportedly at 7.15 pm.

7. The first contention raised by the petitioner was that although the

nearest Magistrate was the Learned ACJM, Siliguri, which was

approximately 3 kms away from the place of arrest. The petitioner was not

produced before him, but was produced before Learned CJM, Jalpaguri,

which was approximately 43 kms away and that too at 9 o’clock at night.

According to the petitioner, this is a violation of the principles of law.

8. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the Enforcement

Directorate that there was no violation of law as the petitioner was produced

before the Special Court within 24 hours of arrest.

9. It is quite understandable that after Court hours one particular Court

may not be available for production of an accused. Even if instead of before

21

the Learned ACJM, Siliguri, the petitioner was produced before the Learned

CJM, Jalpaiguri, who was evidently available at 9.00 pm., the same would

not necessarily be a violation of the statutory requirement. Apparently, the

ED did so as a matter of abundant caution. More importantly, it did not

cause any prejudice to the accused as he was produced before the Special

Court within 24 hours of arrest.

10. The next most vital point raised by the petitioner was that according

to them, the records did not show that a copy of the grounds of arrest was

served upon a relative of the petitioner, as mandated by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra).

11. The contention of the Enforcement Directorate in this regard was that

the statutory requirement was to serve the grounds of arrest upon the

accused petitioner, which was admittedly done. Reference was made to the

relevant documents in this regard. After service of such grounds of arrest,

the same was actually handed over by the petitioner to his relatives who

were present there. However, there is no written record of the same. But,

contemporaneous documents would evince that the same was indeed

handed over to the said relatives. Sometime after the petitioner’s arrest and

supply of the grounds of the arrest to him, he was searched. The search

memo would reveal that he was not having any document like the grounds

of arrest that was earlier supplied to him. Therefore, even the principles laid

down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) as regards supply of grounds of arrest to the

relatives of the accused had been complied with. The next contention of the

Enforcement Directorate was that the rigors of Vihaan Kumar (supra) had

22

been watered down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest Judgement in

Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) indeed emphasized on

supply of grounds of arrest to the accused petitioner and the said

requirement was fully complied with in the instant case.

12. The contention of the Enforcement Directorate that the petitioner had

himself handed over the grounds of arrest to his relatives, as supported by

their documents regarding supply of the grounds of arrest to the petitioner

at some point and non-availability of the same upon search in the presence

of the petitioner after a point, is indeed quite capable of thwarting the

petitioner’s claim of non-supply of grounds of arrest to the relatives of the

victim as required in Vihaan Kumar (supra), at this stage.

13. One has to read with these facts the further fact that sometime after

the arrest of the petitioner, steps were taken on behalf of the petitioner in

respect of the criminal proceeding. In fact, a bail application was moved

after a few days. Therefore, it cannot be established even prima facie that

the petitioner’s relatives were unaware of the case or for that matter, the

grounds of arrest of the petitioner. Thus, even on facts, it does not appear

that there was a violation of the requirement to make the petitioner or his

relatives aware of the grounds of arrest or that any prejudice was caused

thereby.

14. Long incarceration without much progress in a proceeding can indeed

outweigh the rigors of the Section 45 of the PML Act, when read in the light

of the right of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of

23

India. In fact, in a catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has

considered very long incarcerations like for more that a year or one and a

half year as a reasonable period that would warrant necessary intervention.

15. It is true that in the present case, the petitioner is in custody for

about one year and two months. However, there are certain other

aggravating factors that are also to be taken into account while considering

the question of bail.

16. First, coming to the merits of the case, there are prima facie serious

incriminating materials, quite in abundance, available against the present

petitioner. After the arrest of the petitioner, his phone was analysed and

from his mobile phone, a number of mule accounts (519 in number) were

allegedly recovered, which were directly involved with betting activities.

These accounts were frozen between 10.06.2025 to 13.06.2025 having

balance of approximately Rs. 8.20 crores. 6 mule accounts were in the name

of the present petitioner. The freezing orders of the Enforcement Directorate

were issued by the Learned Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated

07.11.2025. Therefore, the petitioner was prima facie found to be actively

involved in provisioning mule accounts to various illegal online betting

panels. He allegedly had a chain of sub-agents who were luring persons to

open mule accounts on commission basis. As per the Enforcement

Directorate, he was also found to be running betting panels and was a direct

recipient of proceeds of crime given to him for provisioning of mule

accounts. Despite being unemployed, his accounts were having a turnover of

Rs. 13 crore. Therefore, it cannot be demonstrated even, prima facie, that

24

the petitioner was not guilty of the alleged offences or that he would not

commit such offences while on bail. Therefore, the rigors of Section 45(1) of

the PML Act cannot be surmounted for the purpose of grant of bail to the

petitioner.

17. According to the ED, the present petitioner is the mastermind of the

scam. Rs. 8.2 crores was attached from him and connected accounts. As per

the ED, the petitioner is also at flight risk. The predicate offences case was

started in October 2022 and the PML Act case in February 2024. So, the

petitioner had remained an absconder in the predicate offences case since

October 2022 and in the PML Act case since February 2024 till he could be

arrested by the ED in this case in June 2025 after much effort. Incidentally,

one of his accomplices had allegedly fled to Dubai. In State of UP through

CBI vs Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held that danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail, is

a matter, among others, to be taken into considera tion at the time of

deciding a bail application. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in The State of Bihar vs Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Pd. Prasad,

(2017) 2 SCC 178 and by a Three Judge’s Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in Deepak Yadav vs The State of UP, (2022) 8 SCC 559 after referring to

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashish Chatterjee & Anr, (2010) 14 SCC 496.

18. Moreover, the present case is not one where no progress has taken

place before the Special Court. Although further investigation is going on,

ED claimed that charges are about to be framed after the petitions of some

25

other co-accused are disposed of. A charge sheet has also been submitted in

the predicate offences case.

19. Therefore, besides the restrictions contained in section 45 of the PML

Act, the gravity and the nature of the offence and its societal impact, the

quality of the incriminating materials collected thus far, the alleged prime

role of being a mastermind of the multi-crore betting scam as ascribed to the

petitioner, the possibility of tampering with the evidence or influencing the

witnesses and most importantly, the chance of fleeing from justice are the

factors that come in the way of granting bail to the present petitioner at this

stage.

20. Considering the above and the other incriminating materials collected

during investigation, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting bail

to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected at this

stage.

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

the parties, upon completion of requisite formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)