Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 23-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Harish Bagla (Managing Director of Amrit Feeds Limited) filed a bail application (CRM (R) 44 of 2026) against the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
  • Background: The Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, filed Company case 4 of 2024 on 22 March 2024 against Bagla and others under Sections 447/129/166/448/177 read with 178(8) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Sections 211(7)/628 of the Companies Act, 1956. A charge sheet was submitted; Bagla was not arrested in connection with this case.
  • ECIR No. KLZO‑I/23/24 was registered by the ED on 18 November 2024 (predicate offence under Section 447, 2013). Search and seizure at Bagla’s residence were conducted on 26 August 2025 (8:30 AM‑10:15 PM). Bagla was arrested at 10:30 PM on the same day.
  • Statements under Section 17 and Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were recorded between 28 August 2025 and 26 September 2025.
  • The ED filed a prosecution complaint on 23 October 2025 against Bagla and 25 co‑accused. The complaint comprises 157 documents (~19,000 pages). Cognizance has not yet been taken; the trial is stayed by this Court (CRR 1491 of 2026, interim stay on 6 April 2026).
  • Allegations: Approximately ₹195.46 crore of loans were sanctioned to Bagla’s companies from 2011 onward; ₹144 crore were disbursed. About ₹91 crore have been recovered by banks and the official liquidator of Amrit Feeds Ltd through asset attachment. The ED alleges that Bagla siphoned loan funds to shell companies controlled by him, his relatives and employees, diverting them to immovable properties and group companies.
  • The ED contends that the loan facilities (term loan and cash credit) were availed between 2010‑2011 and 2014‑2015, defaulted in 2015‑2016 and 2016‑2017, and were reported as NPAs to the RBI.
  • Bagla argues that Section 19 of the PMLA safeguards were not complied with: no material was in possession prior to arrest, “reasons to believe” were not grounded, and the arrest was not necessary for investigation. He also cites his poor health (60 % blockage in left anterior descending artery) and lack of flight risk.
  • The Court examined extensive jurisprudence on Section 19 PMLA, emphasizing three pre‑conditions: material in possession, recorded “reasons to believe”, and informing the arrestee of grounds of arrest.
  • The Court noted that the ED had complied with the procedural requirements post‑search, that material collected during the search could form the basis of “reasons to believe”, and that judicial review of the officer’s subjective satisfaction is limited.
  • The Court also highlighted that prolonged pre‑trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution and that economic offences, while serious, do not automatically preclude bail.

Final Outcome

  • The Court granted bail to Harish Bagla, directing him to furnish a cash bond of Rs 10,00,000 (Ten lakh rupees) with adequate sureties, half of which must be local.
  • Bail conditions include surrendering his passport, not leaving the trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission, furnishing his residential address to the trial Court, ED and local police, appearing at every hearing, not tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses, refraining from any criminal activity, providing his mobile number and not changing it without prior intimation, and complying with any further directions of the trial Court.
  • Violation of any condition empowers the trial Court to cancel bail.
  • The judgment is limited to bail; it does not express any opinion on the merits of the underlying fraud or money‑laundering allegations.

Topics: Legal Bail, Money Laundering, Corporate Fraud