Kolkata, July 30 -- The Calcutta High Court has cancelled the bail granted to an accused in a money laundering case linked to the liquidation of Sahara Group properties, holding that the lower court overlooked crucial documentary evidence and failed to apply the mandatory conditions for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

A Division Bench of Justice Uday Kumar and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj allowed the Enforcement Directorate's plea challenging the bail order passed by a Special Court.

According to the prosecution, the accused acted as a key facilitator in generating and routing unaccounted cash during the sale of Sahara properties. The ED claimed searches at his residence led to the recovery of physical and digital cash ledgers showing alleged unbooked transactions worth Rs 214.66 crore, records of parallel cash movements of Rs 76.29 crore across 28 cities and documents indicating an alleged personal commission of Rs 5.75 crore.

The High Court observed that economic offences involving public money have serious consequences and cannot be treated like ordinary criminal cases. It said money laundering investigations are primarily built on documentary and digital evidence, and courts cannot insist on direct oral statements from individual investors while ignoring such material.

The Bench further held that a person need not be a company director or employee to face prosecution under the PMLA if there is material indicating involvement in handling or concealing the proceeds of crime. It also observed that delays or developments in the scheduled offence do not automatically dilute an independent money laundering investigation. The court found that the Special Court had failed to consider the mandatory twin conditions for bail under the PMLA and wrongly relied on the accused's 124-day custody while overlooking substantial documentary evidence.

Setting aside the bail order, the High Court directed the accused to surrender before the designated Special Court within 72 hours. It further ordered that if he failed to surrender within the stipulated period, the Enforcement Directorate should take him into custody in accordance with law.

The Bench also rejected a plea seeking a stay on the operation of its judgment.

Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.