800-Strong Mob Unleashed Against ED Officials During PDS Scam Search — Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail, Cites Witness Intimidation Threat

"Sufficient incriminating material prima facie suggests their leading role — they are extremely influential persons and are dreaded by one and all", Calcutta High Court rejected the bail applications of two brothers — Sk. Sahajhan @ Sahajhan Sekh and Sk. Alomgir — arrested in connection with a violent mob attack on Enforcement Directorate officials and CRPF personnel who had arrived to conduct search operations in a money laundering case linked to irregularities in the Public Distribution System.

Justice Suvra Ghosh, deciding both applications by a common judgment, held that the prima facie incriminating material against both petitioners, their influence over the locality, and the real threat of witness intimidation disentitled them to bail at this stage — notwithstanding their custody of approximately two years.

The ED was investigating money laundering offences under PMLA arising from alleged irregularities in the procurement, processing, milling, fortification and distribution of ration through the PDS scheme. On January 5, 2024, ED officials accompanied by CRPF personnel reached the residential premises of the first petitioner, Sk. Sahajhan, at 7:05 AM for a search. Despite repeated requests and phone calls — to which his mobile was found continuously busy — the petitioner refused to open the door. Call records revealed that within the same period, between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, the petitioner made 30 calls to 10 persons. Within one hour, a mob of 800 to 1000 persons had gathered, armed with weapons, and proceeded to attack ED and CRPF officials, injure them grievously, smash and set ablaze government vehicles, snatch personal belongings, and chase officials with intent to cause fatal harm.

The Court examined whether bail was warranted given the nature and gravity of the offence, the stage of investigation, the prolonged custody of the petitioners, the credibility of delayed witness statements, and the parity argument based on co-accused having been granted bail.

Prima Facie Role of Petitioners Established

The Court found that the call records of both mobile phones used by the first petitioner, combined with witness statements including that of his own wife, prima facie confirmed his presence inside the house and his making calls to orchestrate the mob assembly. After the ED and CRPF personnel fled, witnesses stated that the first petitioner emerged from his house, addressed the mob, directed them to remain incognito and contact an associate if they faced difficulty, and left the premises with bags. The second petitioner was found to be closely involved in mobilising the crowd and was connected to the cache of firearms stored at the associate's premises at his instance.

Prolonged Custody Alone Not Sufficient Ground Where Witness Intimidation Is a Real Threat

The petitioners pressed the argument that custody of approximately two years without conclusion of trial amounts to punitive detention, a proposition the Court acknowledged. "The Courts have frowned upon prolonged detention of the accused without trial and have insisted that such detention should not turn punitive," the Court noted. However, it held that bail applications must be decided on the specific facts of each case. Here, the incriminating material was substantial, investigation was still underway, and the threat to witnesses was not theoretical. A witness named Bholanath Ghosh — who had lodged several complaints against the first petitioner — had filed a complaint in December 2025 alleging that a road accident was orchestrated by the first petitioner, resulting in the death of his son and driver. The National Commission for Women had also visited the locality, interacted with complainants affected by the petitioners' conduct, and recommended urgent further investigation. "In the event the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, possibility of their tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses cannot be ruled out."

Delayed Witness Statements — Credibility a Trial Matter

The petitioners argued that witness statements recorded by the CBI more than three months after the incident, after the case was handed over in March 2024, were the product of tutoring and afterthought. The Court declined to adjudicate this contention in bail proceedings. Whether the delay in recording statements strikes at their credibility, the Court held, is a matter to be examined at the appropriate stage of trial. The observation in bail proceedings, the Court clarified, cannot be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits.

Parity with Co-Accused on Bail Not Available

The petitioners pointed to co-accused who had led the mob and been granted bail to claim parity. The Court rejected this outright. The co-accused who were granted bail were not similarly circumstanced with the petitioners, who are the principal accused. The sole co-accused whose bail had been confirmed — Mafujar Molla — received it on the ground of severe illness of his two-year-old daughter. The CBI was already taking steps to seek cancellation of even that bail. "The co-accused who have been released on bail are not similarly circumstanced with the petitioners who are the principal accused."

Date of Decision: March 19, 2026