The Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Sri Vijaya Puram (Port Blair) on Tuesday rejected the bail plea of Kuldeep Rai Sharma in connection with FIR No. 14 of 2025 and proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The case is linked to an ongoing investigation into alleged financial irregularities at the Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank (ANSCB). The court also rejected the bail pleas of Sanjay Lal and K. Kalaivanan in connection with the same case.
Appearing for the petitioner were senior advocate Milon Mukherjee, along with Mohammed Tabraiz and Mohammed Sharukh. Representing the Enforcement Directorate were senior advocate Zoheb Hossain, assisted by V. D. Sivabalan and Arun S. Kumar.
The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated due to political reasons and argued that the essential ingredients of offences such as cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, or conspiracy were not established. It was also submitted that no funds were received by him. Medical grounds, including hypertension, hyperthyroidism, and severe obstructive sleep apnoea, were cited in support of the bail plea, along with reliance on judicial precedents. The defence further noted that he had been in custody for over 200 days and that the trial could be prolonged due to the large number of witnesses and documents involved.
Opposing bail, the Enforcement Directorate alleged fraudulent sanction of loans worth approximately ₹11.60 crore through shell companies during Sharma’s tenure as Vice Chairman of the bank. The ED referred to statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, bank records, cheque trails, and alleged multilayered fund transfers amounting to several crores, including about ₹41 crore allegedly routed to him or his associates.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s medical condition was not life-threatening and did not qualify for exemption under Section 45 of the PMLA. It further noted that prima facie material, supported by documentary evidence, substantiated the allegations. The Court also took into account the petitioner’s political position and the potential risk of influencing witnesses.
Holding that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied and that the period of custody was not excessive considering the gravity of the allegations, the Court dismissed the bail application.
