The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on the bail application filed by Sanjay Kumar Surekha, Chairman and Managing Director of Concast Steel and Power Ltd. (CSPL), in a money laundering case involving alleged diversion of ₹6,210.72 crore.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi reserved the order after hearing submissions advanced by Surekha as well as the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Surekha has remained in custody since December 18, 2024, and is challenging the Calcutta High Court’s November 14, 2025 decision declining to release him on bail.
The prosecution case relates to allegations that CSPL’s financial figures were artificially enhanced to obtain substantial credit facilities from banks, following which funds were allegedly routed through shell entities. The Calcutta High Court had found prima facie material indicating Surekha’s involvement in the alleged financial irregularities.
During the Supreme Court hearing, the Bench closely examined the ED’s contention that Surekha had attempted to interfere with the investigation while in custody. The Court specifically sought the material on the basis of which the agency alleged that the accused had attempted to influence witnesses or otherwise obstruct the probe.
The Bench also questioned the ED over its reliance on alleged communications involving Surekha’s family members. When the agency referred to the recovery of mobile phones from the correctional facility, the Court sought to know whether there was material establishing that those phones had actually been used by Surekha.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Surekha, placed considerable emphasis on the length of his incarceration. He submitted that his client had been behind bars for nearly 20 months and that the investigation had progressed substantially, with the prosecution complaint and supplementary complaints already filed.
Rohatgi further contended that Surekha had not been interrogated even once during his custody. According to the submissions, the proceedings involve 97 accused, 48 witnesses and approximately 15,000 pages of relied-upon documents, making an early conclusion of the trial unlikely.
The defence also disputed the allegation that Surekha was controlling the affairs of his companies or attempting to influence witnesses from prison. Rohatgi argued that the material relied upon by the prosecution did not establish such conduct and urged the Court to take into account the prolonged incarceration of the accused.
The ED, however, strongly opposed the bail plea, portraying Surekha as the principal figure behind the alleged financial fraud and money laundering network. The agency alleged that he engineered transactions intended to inflate CSPL’s turnover, enabling the company to obtain substantial bank credit, and subsequently facilitated the movement of funds through associated shell entities.
The agency further alleged that portions of the diverted funds were utilised for personal expenses and acquisition of luxury assets. It maintained that the grounds of arrest were duly recorded and were founded upon material gathered during the investigation.
The ED’s opposition to bail also drew upon the findings recorded by the Calcutta High Court. The High Court had noted allegations that Surekha remained in contact with accountants, employees and relatives while in custody and was allegedly facilitating financial transactions involving other accused persons.
While considering his earlier bail application, the High Court had taken note of the prolonged period of incarceration and the principles concerning pre-trial detention. However, it concluded that the seriousness of the alleged economic offence, the stage of investigation and the material placed before it did not justify release at that stage.
The High Court had consequently held that Surekha failed to satisfy the twin requirements prescribed under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and rejected his bail plea.
With the Supreme Court now reserving its order, the question of whether Surekha should be released pending trial remains open. The Court’s eventual ruling will also determine how the competing considerations of prolonged incarceration, the stage of the PMLA proceedings and the prosecution’s apprehensions regarding interference with the investigation are to be balanced in the present case.
The post Supreme Court reserves verdict on concast Steel & Power CMD’s bail plea in ₹6,210 crore PMLA case appeared first on India Legal.