Authority: Calcutta High Court (Division Bench)
Order Date: 24 July 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Enforcement Directorate (Petitioner) vs. Jitendra Prasad Verma alias J. P. Verma (Opposite Party). Counsel for ED: Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti, Ms. Swati Kumari Singh. Counsel for the opposite party: Mr. Vikram Chaudhury, Mr. Sajjal Yadav, Ms. N Ahmed, Ms. P. Banerjee.
- Nature of Proceeding: Application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking cancellation of a regular bail order dated 14 Nov 2025 issued by the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta (Designated Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – PMLA) in ML Case No. 11 of 2025.
- Background: The prosecution stems from a complaint alleging an offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, linked to the systemic collapse of the Sahara Group of Companies. Funds amounting to hundreds of crores were collected from retail depositors for alleged real‑estate projects and high‑yield schemes, later layered and siphoned through shadow companies and cash couriers.
- Allegations Against Verma: He is alleged to have acted as the chief financial conduit for the illicit cash operations. Searches under Section 17 of the PMLA at his residence recovered:
- Physical and digital cash ledgers showing un‑booked transactions worth ₹214.66 crore.
- Evidence of parallel cash movements across 28 cities totalling ₹76.29 crore.
- A transaction slip from Faizabad documenting a personal commission of ₹5.75 crore paid to Verma.
- Lower Court Bail Order: The Special Court granted regular bail, relying on three grounds:
1. Verma was not an employee or director of Sahara, thus allegedly not responsible for the corporate default.
2. No oral statement from any depositor directly named him.
3. He had already spent 124 days in pre‑trial detention, and further custody would violate Article 21.
- Petitioner's Arguments (ED): The bail order ignored mandatory statutory provisions of Section 45(1) of the PMLA, ignored the documentary trail, and was perverse. The court emphasized that the liquidation of Sahara assets was under a Supreme Court‑mandated restitution scheme (SEBI‑Sahara Account) that required 90 % of circle rates and full deposit of proceeds, which Verma allegedly subverted to generate parallel cash.
- Opposite Party’s Counter‑Arguments: Counsel argued Verma was merely a freelance land broker operating under the Supreme Court’s directives, that the transactions were legitimate commercial considerations, and that any undeclared cash would be a tax issue, not money‑laundering. He also contended that the predicate FIR (FIR No. 142 of 2020) was closed, removing the basis for PMLA prosecution.
- Legal Precedents Cited:
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2023) – mandatory nature of Section 45(1).
- Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi (2024) – independence of PMLA investigation from predicate offence.
- Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, ED (2024) – economic offences are a “class apart”.
- Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. ED (2025) & Basudeb Bagchi v. ED (2026) – money‑laundering persists as long as proceeds circulate.
- Various Supreme Court decisions on bail cancellation pathways (Puran v. Rambilas, etc.).
- Statutory Analysis: The court distinguished two pathways for bail cancellation – (i) supervening circumstances post‑release, and (ii) inherent perversity of the original bail order. It found the present case falls under the latter because the Special Court ignored Section 45(1) and Section 24, failed to consider the massive documentary evidence, and relied on irrelevant oral testimony.
- Key Findings:
- The bail order was “patently perverse, illegal and in violation of mandatory statutory bars”.
- The evidence of ₹214.66 crore ledger, ₹76.29 crore parallel cash, and ₹5.75 crore personal cut triggered the statutory presumption under Section 24.
- The 124‑day pre‑trial custody was far short of the threshold under Section 436A (now Section 479 of BNSS, 2023).
- The Supreme Court‑mandated liquidation framework could not be used as a shield for money‑laundering.
Final Outcome
- The High Court allowed CRM(R) No. 13 of 2026, quashed and set aside the bail order dated 14 Nov 2025.
- No costs were awarded.
- Jitendra Prasad Verma was directed to surrender before the Designated Special Court within 72 hours of the judgment delivery; failure to do so would result in immediate custody by the Enforcement Directorate.
- The petitioner's request for a stay of the judgment was considered and rejected.
Topics: Money Laundering, Bail Cancellation