The Calcutta High Court has refused to grant bail to Basudeb Bagchi and his son Avik Bagchi, key figures behind the Prayag Group, in a major money laundering case involving alleged investor fraud worth over ₹2,800 crore. The court held that the seriousness of the allegations and the scale of the alleged financial crime outweighed the plea for personal liberty.
Background of the Case
The case arises from an Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The agency has accused the Prayag Group of cheating thousands of investors through misleading real estate, time-share, and gold investment schemes.
Read also:- Leopard Attack or Murder? Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Key Accused in Shocking Yavat Killing Case
According to the ED, the group collected nearly ₹2,862 crore from the public. While about ₹1,140 crore was reportedly returned, investigators claim that nearly ₹1,906 crore remains unaccounted for and was allegedly routed through shell companies.
The present case relates to ML Case No. 10 of 2024, linked to a fresh Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR). The ED claims that even while an earlier probe was pending, the accused continued generating illegal proceeds.
Arguments by the Accused
Senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the present case was a repetition of an earlier investigation and therefore violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Relying on recent Supreme Court judgments, the defence claimed prolonged custody without trial amounted to “pre-trial punishment.”
The defence also pointed out that:
- The accused had already spent over eight months in custody
- The trial involved thousands of pages and numerous witnesses
- One of the petitioners is a 68-year-old senior citizen suffering from health issues
- A High Court–appointed committee was already handling asset recovery
“The continued incarceration of the petitioners violates their fundamental right to personal liberty,” the counsel submitted, urging the court to grant bail.
Stand of the Enforcement Directorate
The ED strongly opposed the bail plea, asserting that the case involved fresh proceeds of crime and could not be treated as a repeat prosecution. It argued that money laundering is a continuing offence and that fresh illegal transactions after 2016 formed the basis of the present case.
The agency further informed the court that:
- The accused were declared proclaimed offenders
- They had evaded summons and warrants
- A large portion of the money trail remains untraced
- The offence impacted thousands of small investors
“The gravity of the offence and the scale of public loss demand strict scrutiny,” the ED argued.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sends Dubai-Based Couple to Mediation, Flags Child's Stay Away from Parents as "Objectionable"
Court’s Observations
After examining the records, the bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar rejected the defence argument of double jeopardy. The court clarified that protection under Article 20(2) applies only after conviction or acquittal, not during an ongoing investigation.
The court observed:
“Money laundering is a continuing offence. If fresh proceeds of crime are generated, it gives rise to a new cause of action.”
The judges also emphasized that bail under PMLA is governed by strict “twin conditions,” which require the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offences.
In this case, the court noted:
- Nearly ₹1,906 crore remains unaccounted for
- The accused had avoided legal process
- The scale of the alleged fraud was enormous
- Economic offences involving public money demand stricter scrutiny
The bench further remarked that economic crimes affect the country’s financial health and cannot be treated lightly.
Read also:- Scholarship received by wife before marriage cannot take away husband's rights: Rajasthan High Court
Final Decision
Rejecting the bail plea, the High Court held:
“This is not a fit case for the grant of regular bail.”
The court concluded that the petitioners failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions under the PMLA and that their conduct as proclaimed offenders weakened their claim for relief.
However, to ensure fairness, the court directed the trial court to conduct proceedings on a day-to-day basis and asked the Enforcement Directorate to ensure timely production of witnesses.
With these directions, the bail application was dismissed.
Case Title: Basudeb Bagchi & Anr. vs Enforcement Directorate
Case Number: CRM (M) 932 of 2025
Decision Date: 15 January 2026
