Basudeb Bagchi & Anr. Vs Enforcement Directorate (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court of India granted regular bail to Basudeb Bagchi and another petitioner in a money laundering case arising from alleged diversion and siphoning of investors’ funds collected through Prayag Group investment schemes. The allegations, linked to investigations following the Saradha Chit Fund Scam in West Bengal, concerned transactions dating back to 2013–2014. The petitioners faced prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Their regular bail application had been rejected by the Calcutta High Court on 15 January 2026, prompting the special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
The Court noted that several FIRs had previously been registered in connection with the chit fund cases and that investigations in certain matters had been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioners had undergone substantial incarceration in the predicate-offence proceedings and had obtained bail in other cases. In the present Enforcement Directorate case, registered through an ECIR dated 1 August 2024, they were arrested on 26 November 2024 and remained in custody. Although the prosecution complaint was filed on 25 January 2025, citing 29 witnesses and documents running into several thousand pages, charges had not yet been framed. The petitioners submitted that they had spent approximately 33 months in custody across multiple proceedings, including more than 16 months in the present ECIR, and argued that repeated incarceration on similar allegations amounted to double jeopardy. The Enforcement Directorate opposed bail, alleging continued money laundering activity after their release in other cases, but did not dispute that the transactions forming the present ECIR were approximately eight to ten years old.
Considering the prolonged incarceration already undergone in connection with the predicate offences, the age of the alleged transactions and the absence of any likelihood of an early conclusion of trial, the Supreme Court directed the petitioners’ release on bail on conditions to be imposed by the trial court. They were directed to deposit their passports, refrain from leaving India without prior trial court permission and continue cooperating with the proceedings. The Court also permitted the trial court or Enforcement Directorate to approach it if the petitioners delayed the trial. The special leave petition and pending applications were disposed of. The order grants bail without determining the petitioners’ guilt or expressly accepting their double-jeopardy argument.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
The petitioners are incarcerated in connection with ML Case No. 10 of 2024 (arising out of ECIR/KLZO-I/15/2024). Their application for regular bail stands rejected by the High Court of Calcutta vide order dated 15th January, 2026 and hence, the instant special leave petition.
2. We have heard Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent and have perused the material available on record.
3. The ECIR leading to ML Case No. 10 of 2024 has been registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The alleged transactions, which form the basis of the present ECIR, relate to the period 2013-2014. Broadly,the allegations against the petitioners are of siphoning and diversion of investors’ funds collected through the Prayag Group investment schemes, which came under investigation pursuant to the Saradha Chit Fund Scam in the State of West Bengal.
3. It is not in dispute that several FIRs were registered with the local police in relation to the chit fund cases. Vide order dated
9th May, 2014, this Court transferred the investigation in such matters to the CBI, which registered regular cases and arrested the petitioners. These cases were registered in relation to the transactions which took place in the State of Orissa. Eventually, after having undergone incarceration for a significant period of time, the petitioners were released on bail.
4. The High Courts of Jharkhand and Assam also directed transfer of similar FIRs registered in those respective States to the CBI.
The petitioners were also arrested in the CBI case in Assam in which too, they have been reportedly granted bail. However, in the Jharkhand CBI case, till date, the petitioners have not been arrested.
5. Pursuant to registration of the ECIR in question on 1st August, 2024, the petitioners were arrested on 26th November, 2024 and have remained incarcerated since then. A prosecution complaint arising out of the ECIR, citing 29 witnesses and numerous
documents running into several thousand pages was filed on 25th January, 2025. However, till date, charges have not been framed.
6. Shri Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have undergone incarceration for approximately 33 months in connection with multiple FIRs, including more than 16 months in connection with the present ECIR. It is urged that repeated incarceration in FIRs registered for similar set of allegations tantamounts to double jeopardy and hence, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail during the pendency of trial.
7. Shri Raju has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. He urged that even after being released on bail in the other cases, the petitioners continued to indulge in incidents of money laundering and hence, they do not deserve the indulgence of bail. However, on a pertinent query being put, Shri Raju was not in a position to dispute the fact that the alleged incidents of money laundering attributed to the petitioners in the present ECIR relate to transactions which are almost 8 to 10 years old.
8. In this background and considering the fact that the petitioners have already suffered significant incarceration in connection with the predicate offences, which took place way back in the year 2013-2014 and further considering the fact that there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial in the present case, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
9. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners be released on bail, on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court, in connection with ML Case No. 10 of 2024 arising out of ECIR/KLZO-I/15/2024 dated 1st August, 2024.
10. It is provided that the petitioners shall deposit their passports with the trial Court and shall not leave the country during the pendency of the trial without the prior permission of the trial Court.
11. The petitioners shall continue to cooperate in the trial and, in the event, the trial Court or the respondent finds that the petitioners are delaying the conclusion of trial, it will be open for them to apprise this Court of the same for appropriate orders.
12. The special leave petition and pending applications are disposed of accordingly.
