Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction – Appellate Side

Order Date: 24.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Anil Vailaparampil Abraham, senior executive in the Chairman's Core Management (CCM) / Crisis Management Team (CMT) of the Sahara Group.
  • Respondent: Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Kolkata Zone – I.
  • Original bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
  • Underlying criminal matter: Case No. 11 of 2025 (ECIR KLZO‑I/21/2023) before the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, designated as Special Court under the PMLA, alleging offences under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 70 of the PMLA.
  • Investigation stems from >500 FIRs across multiple states (Sections 420 and 120B IPC), >300 of which pertain to scheduled offences under the PMLA, relating to an alleged Ponzi scheme operated by M/s Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd (HICCSL), a credit cooperative under the Sahara Group.
  • Core allegation against petitioner: facilitation of an irregular sale of a 32‑acre land parcel owned by M/s Sahara Prime City Limited, Berhampur, Odisha, in December 2025, using a revoked board resolution and contravening Supreme Court asset‑preservation directives (SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd., 11 July 2016).
  • Sale allegedly undervalued; unrecorded cash component of ₹76.29 crore siphoned across multiple city holdings, constituting fresh proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) PMLA.
  • Petitioner's arrest under Section 19 PMLA; Special Judge rejected regular bail on 22 Dec 2025, citing statutory bars under Section 45 PMLA.
  • Counsel for petitioner (Senior Advocate Sandipan Ganguly) argued petitioner was a mid‑level salaried employee without equity, signing authority, or direct nexus to deposit collection; challenged admissibility of digital evidence (Excel sheet from cloud backup) under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; cited medical ailments and parity with co‑accused J.P. Verma who obtained bail.
  • Counsel for ED (Arijit Chakrabarti) contended petitioner was a key functionary in CCM, instrumental in subverting Supreme Court‑ordered asset‑liquidation mechanism, generating ₹76.29 crore unaccounted cash, and that continued custody is essential to trace domestic and international money trails.
  • Both sides referenced multiple Supreme Court precedents (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2023), Pankaj Bansal (2024), Tarun Kumar (2024), etc.) regarding the strict application of Section 45 PMLA for economic offences.

Final Outcome

  • The Bench (Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar) affirmed the Special Judge’s discretion, finding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin statutory conditions of Section 45 PMLA: (i) reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty, and (ii) likelihood of committing further offence while on bail.
  • Consequently, CRM(R) 16/2026 was dismissed; the regular bail petition of Anil Vailaparampil Abraham was rejected.
  • No order as to costs.
  • The Directorate of Enforcement was directed to take immediate steps to secure the remaining absconding co‑accused and to expedite the supplementary investigation and trial before the Special Court.
  • The Registry was instructed to forward a certified copy of the judgment to the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, for necessary action.

Topics: Money Laundering, Public Deposit Scam, Judicial Bail