The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday refused to release Yogesh Dua, holding that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had followed the law while arresting him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Justice Suvra Ghosh ruled that the safeguards under Section 19 of the Act were properly observed, dismissing Dua’s writ petition that challenged the legality of his arrest and continued custody.
The judgment comes in a case linked to a large cyber fraud network, where investigators claim digital scam proceeds running into more than ₹1,271 crore were laundered through multiple bank accounts.
Read also:-Supreme Court settles Tiger Global tax dispute, backs treaty protection in ₹15,000+ crore Flipkart
Background of the Case
The case has its roots in an FIR registered in June 2024 at the Cyber Police Station in Kolkata, relating to alleged online fraud of ₹47 lakh. Though Yogesh Dua was not named in the original complaint, the Enforcement Directorate later treated the FIR as a “predicate offence” and registered a money-laundering case in March 2025.
Dua was arrested by the ED on April 4, 2025, after being produced before the City Sessions Court. He has remained in custody since then.
Challenging his arrest, Dua moved the High Court, arguing that the ED violated mandatory safeguards under Section 19 of the PMLA. His lawyers claimed that the “reasons to believe” and “grounds of arrest” were mechanical and that the agency relied only on material from the cyber police investigation, without conducting an independent probe.
Read also:- Supreme Court clears insolvency against Takshashila Elegna developer, rejects housing society's bid
What the Petitioner Argued
Appearing for Dua, senior advocate Vikram Chaudhury told the court that arrest under the PMLA is not meant to be routine. He said the law requires the ED to have solid material in hand before depriving a person of liberty.
The defence also pointed to Dua’s bank records, saying his cash deposits were modest, disclosed in income-tax returns, and had no link with any co-accused. “There is no money trail connecting my client to the alleged mastermind,” counsel argued.
Another major objection was procedural. The petitioner claimed that the ED sent arrest papers to the Adjudicating Authority three days later, which, according to him, violated Section 19(2) of the Act.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail to Prayag Group Directors in ₹2,800 Crore PMLA Case, Cites Gravity
ED’s Stand in Court
The Enforcement Directorate strongly opposed the plea. Its lawyers told the court that Dua was part of a wider network that used multiple shell accounts to route money from digital arrest scams and cyber frauds across the country.
They said investigations revealed that several bank accounts were opened in the names of firms and individuals who did not even exist, while debit cards and PAN cards of different people were found in the accused’s possession.
The ED maintained that the arresting officer had sufficient material and had properly recorded “reasons to believe” before taking Dua into custody. On the delay in forwarding documents, the agency explained that April 5 and 6 were holidays and the papers were sent on the next working day.
Read also:- Delhi HC Issues Notice on Rabri Devi's Challenge to IRCTC Scam Charges, Seeks CBI Reply Before Jan
Court’s Observations
Justice Suvra Ghosh examined the scope of Section 19 of the PMLA in detail, relying on recent Supreme Court rulings, including Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India.
The court underlined that three conditions must exist before an arrest under PMLA:
- The officer must possess material.
- He must record “reasons to believe” in writing.
- The arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest.
In this case, the judge noted that the ED had gone beyond the cyber police file and conducted its own investigation. “The documents placed before this court prima facie suggest that an independent inquiry was undertaken by the Enforcement Directorate,” the bench observed.
On the issue of delay, the court accepted the ED’s explanation, holding that forwarding the documents on April 7, after weekend holidays, amounted to compliance within a “reasonable time.”
Quoting Supreme Court guidance, Justice Ghosh reminded that courts should not weigh the sufficiency of evidence at this early stage. “Judicial review in such matters is limited to examining whether statutory safeguards were followed,” the order said.
Read also:- Supreme Court Settles Waiting List Dispute, Clears RPSC Appeals in Three Recruitment Cases
The Decision
Concluding that there was no violation of Section 19 of the PMLA, the Calcutta High Court dismissed Yogesh Dua’s writ petition.
“The mandate of Section 19 has been sufficiently and adequately complied with,” Justice Suvra Ghosh ruled, adding that the petitioner is not entitled to release on the ground of procedural lapses.
The court made it clear that it was not examining the merits of the money-laundering allegations and left it open for Dua to seek bail on merits before the appropriate court. With that, the writ petition and the connected application were both disposed of, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Yogesh Dua v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: WPA 8323 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025
Decision Date: 7 January 2026
