Calcutta High Court ruling will not affect account freeze imposed by Enforcement Directorate

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has issued orders to freeze the bank deposits of the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) totaling 440 crore rupees located in Kolkata. This decision was made on Tuesday as part of the application of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Reasons for the Investigation

These measures followed an ongoing money laundering investigation concerning financial transactions linked to TMC's bank accounts. The agency stated that over 150 crore rupees were transferred through a network of aviation, tourism, and related service companies. An inquiry is currently underway to determine if funds used for charter flights during the party's 2024 election campaign were disguised through numerous legal entities to conceal their origin.

Start of the Inquiry and Investigative Actions

The investigation began after a complaint filed in June, alleging that proceeds from large-scale cyber fraud had been transferred to specific TMC accounts. Based on this complaint, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) and froze debit operations on three party accounts before the ED joined the investigation under PMLA. Investigators are examining at least 18 TMC bank accounts, as well as transactions involving firms such as Carewell Travels, Windborne Aviation, and Anita Tours.

Search and Further Examination

As part of the investigation, the ED conducted searches on Tuesday at five locations in Kolkata, including the offices of Carewell Travels, the election trust, and the accountant. Documents and electronic devices were seized. Furthermore, the agency is examining the matter of Carewell Aviation's aircraft acquisitions between 2023 and 2026 and determining whether these purchases are linked to suspicious financial operations.

The Supreme Court refused to overturn the order of the Meghalaya High Court that granted bail to Sonam Raguvanshi. She is accused of murdering her husband, Raji Raguvanshi, during their honeymoon in the northeastern state.

Circumstances of the Murder Case

Raji Raguvanshi, a transport businessman, went missing on May 23 last year during his honeymoon in Meghalaya. His mutilated body was discovered on June 2 in a deep gorge near a waterfall in the Sohra area, East Khasi Hills district. In connection with this case, Sonam, his wife, along with several other individuals, including her alleged lover, were arrested.

Supreme Court's Stance

A private bench of judges, comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Sheila Nagu, expressed reservations regarding the High Court's decision to grant bail. Nevertheless, they noted that Sonam Raguvanshi had already been released from custody and was currently in Shillong under the conditions set by the trial court.

Justice Sundresh stated: 'At first glance, we have some observations regarding the High Court's decision.' Addressing the accused's lawyer, who appeared upon notice, Justice Sundresh remarked that the grounds for arrest had been explained to the accused, and this issue had not been raised in previous bail applications. He asked: 'Only later did you raise this ground. Is the court justified in granting bail on a technical ground, that an incorrect provision was cited, especially when bail was previously rejected on merits?'

How a Technical Error Helped Obtain Bail

Sonam obtained bail on April 27 thanks to the decisive role played by a technical error. The initial First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to murder. However, when Sonam was informed of the grounds for her arrest, the police cited Section 403(1) of the BNS instead. Section 403(1) does not exist in the BNS, and in the old Indian Penal Code, Section 403 dealt with criminal breach of trust, but this provision was not transferred to the BNS.

The trial court found that the error was not limited to a single document. The incorrect section was mentioned in several records, including the arrest memo, the arrest checklist, the justification for arrest, the inspection report, the rights notification, and the court diary extract. None of these documents informed Sonam that she was arrested under Section 103, the charge of murder.

Rejecting the defense's argument that it was merely a technical error, the court ruled that such an error appearing in a series of documents cannot be ignored. It concluded that Sonam had not been properly informed of the grounds of her arrest, which is a legal right of every detained person, and granted her bail.