In a hard-hitting order delivered this week, the Calcutta High Court declined to grant bail to senior executives of the Prayag Group, accused in one of eastern India’s largest alleged money laundering cases. The bench held that the magnitude of the alleged fraud, coupled with the conduct of the accused, left little room for judicial leniency.
The court was hearing a plea by Basudeb Bagchi, 68, and his son Avik Bagchi, 42, who sought regular bail in a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Background of the Case
According to the ED, the Prayag Group ran a series of investment schemes in the garb of real estate, time-share and gold-based plans, allegedly collecting nearly ₹2,862 crore from thousands of investors across multiple states.
Investigators claim that while around ₹1,140 crore was later returned, nearly ₹1,906 crore remains unaccounted for. The agency alleges that this amount represents “proceeds of crime” that were layered through shell companies and fresh transactions even after an earlier probe had begun in 2016.
The Bagchis, described by the ED as the “guiding spirits” of the group, are currently in judicial custody in connection with a money laundering case arising out of earlier CBI investigations.
Read also:- Retirement Can’t Be Rewritten Using Aadhaar: MP High Court Quashes Anganwadi Reinstatement
Arguments by the Defence
Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel Misha Rahotgi Mohta argued that the present case was effectively a repeat of the earlier investigation and violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
She told the court that, “You cannot prosecute the same individuals again and again for the same alleged offence simply by changing the label of the investigation.”
The defence also relied on recent Supreme Court rulings to argue that prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of an early trial amounted to pre-trial punishment. Pointing to the size of the case record - running into more than 3,500 pages - counsel submitted that the trial could stretch on for years.
Special emphasis was placed on the age and health of Basudeb Bagchi. His lawyers told the bench that he suffers from diabetes and hypertension and deserved the benefit of the proviso under the PMLA that allows courts to consider bail for elderly and infirm accused.
Read also:- Can Law Graduates With Pending Criminal Cases Be Enrolled as Advocates? Madras HC Larger Bench to Decide
Stand of the Enforcement Directorate
The ED strongly opposed the bail plea, maintaining that the present prosecution was not a duplication but concerned fresh laundering activities after 2016.
The agency also pointed out that the accused had earlier been declared proclaimed offenders for evading court proceedings. “This conduct itself shows the risk of flight and interference with justice,” the prosecution argued.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the ED stressed that economic offences involving public money stand on a different footing. “When thousands of families lose their life savings, the court must look beyond individual hardship,” the counsel submitted.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, the division bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar rejected the argument of double jeopardy, noting that the earlier trial is still pending and has not resulted in either conviction or acquittal.
“The protection against being tried twice applies only after a case has reached its legal conclusion,” the court observed.
On the nature of money laundering, the bench underlined that it is not a one-time act but a continuing offence. “If fresh illegal funds are generated during the pendency of an earlier investigation, that itself becomes a new cause of action,” the judges said.
The court also found the “twin conditions” for bail under the PMLA to be unmet. Given the scale of the alleged siphoning and the untraced funds, the bench said it could not record a satisfaction that the accused were not guilty at this stage.
On the issue of age and illness, the court acknowledged the discretion available but made it clear that, “Humanitarian considerations cannot override the risk of absconding in cases of this magnitude.”
Read also:- Supreme Court clears insolvency against Takshashila Elegna developer, rejects housing society's bid
The Decision
Concluding that the liberty of the accused had to be weighed against the interests of thousands of allegedly defrauded investors, the Calcutta High Court refused to grant bail to Basudeb Bagchi and Avik Bagchi.
“The gravity of the offence, coupled with the conduct of the petitioners, creates a formidable legal barrier to their release,” the bench held.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to proceed with the case on a day-to-day basis to ensure that the right to a speedy trial is not compromised.
Case Title: Basudeb Bagchi & Anr. vs Enforcement Directorate
Case No.: CRM (M) 932 of 2025
Case Type: Bail Application under PMLA
Decision Date: 15 January 2026
