Calcutta High Court denies bail to Sujit Bose: the former West Bengal minister has not overcome the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act at this stage, the Court held.
Kolkata: In a money laundering case pursued by the Directorate of Enforcement, the Calcutta High Court denies bail to former state minister Sujit Bose, holding that the filing of the prosecution complaint and the taking of cognizance by the Special Court is not by itself a ground to release him [Sujit Bose v. Directorate of Enforcement].
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh dismissed C.R.M. (R) 58 of 2026 on October 13; judgment had been reserved on September 25. Bose had sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita read with Section 45 of the PMLA, after the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, refused relief.
Why the Court said no
The agency’s case had “some force”, the Court recorded, because about 45 immovable properties of the petitioner and his family were traced in August and September 2026 while he was in custody. Valuers had been engaged, and information about other recommended candidates had been shared with the CBI under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. The Special Court’s observation that investigation against Bose was complete was noted, but the High Court did not treat it as decisive.
The Court turned to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad (2025) and quoted the principle that “merely because the prosecution complaint had been filed and the cognizance was taken by the court” would not by itself be a ground to release an accused on bail.
I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to overcome the rigors of Section 45 PMLA Act
The bail prayer was rejected at this stage and the petition dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.
The allegations and the arguments
The case rests on ECIR/KLZO-II/15/2023, which concerns the alleged South Dum Dum municipality recruitment scam. According to the Enforcement Directorate, illegal municipal appointments were made on recommendations from Bose and other politically exposed persons, and proceeds of about Rs 20.40 crore were laundered through accounts held by him and his family members. These are the agency’s allegations. They are untested, the Court has expressed no view on guilt, and Bose is presumed innocent unless proved guilty at trial.
For Bose, Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sabyasachi Banerjee argued that he had cooperated whenever summoned, and that the delay in his arrest undercut any case of flight risk, tampering or need for custodial interrogation. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, relied on seized records and the transaction trail to submit that the alleged laundering was established prima facie.
What the order reaffirms
Bail in money laundering cases under Section 45 of the PMLA is conditional on the court being satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. Filing of the complaint and cognizance, the order makes clear, do not dilute those twin conditions, and the stage of investigation and the material traced by the agency remain relevant at the bail stage. The Court’s findings are limited to bail and do not decide the merits of the case.
Case Title: Sujit Bose v. Directorate of Enforcement [C.R.M. (R) 58 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, Calcutta High Court
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sabyasachi Banerjee for the petitioner; Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, ASG Dhiraj Trivedi and Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain for the Enforcement Directorate