Bail Denied to Key Accused in Mob Attack on ED Officials During PDS Scam Probe: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has refused bail to Sk. Sahajhan @ Sahajhan Sekh and his brother Sk. Alomgir, two prime accused, allegedly involved in a violent mob attack on officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Reserve Police Force during a money laundering investigation linked to the Public Distribution System (PDS). The bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh dismissed the bail applications filed by Sk. Sahajhan @ Sahajhan Sekh and his brother Sk. Alomgir, observing that both played a “leading role” in orchestrating the violent incident and could potentially tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses if released. The case stems from a January 5, 2024 incident in West Bengal, where officials of the Enforcement Directorate, accompanied by CRPF personnel, visited the residence of Sahajhan Sekh to conduct searches in connection with a money laundering probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The investigation pertained to alleged irregularities in procurement, processing, and distribution of ration under the PDS scheme. According to the prosecution, Sekh refused to cooperate with officials and instead allegedly mobilized a large mob through phone calls. Within a short span, around 800 to 1,000 people reportedly gathered and launched a violent attack on the officials. The mob allegedly assaulted ED and CRPF personnel, pelted stones, damaged government vehicles, and even set some ablaze. Several officials sustained serious injuries and were forced to flee. Similar violence was reported at Sekh’s office premises. The Central Bureau of Investigation, which later took over the investigation, submitted that call records, witness statements, and video footage prima facie establish that Sahajhan Sekh was present at his residence and actively directed the mob. He allegedly made multiple calls instructing associates to gather and resist the search operation. The agency further alleged that co-accused Sk. Alomgir played an active supporting role in mobilizing the crowd and facilitating the attack. Firearms were also reportedly recovered from a close associate’s residence, allegedly linked to the accused. The petitioners argued that mere non-cooperation with investigating authorities cannot justify arrest. They contended that no direct evidence proves the petitioners’ involvement in the violence, and that mobile tower location does not conclusively establish presence at the scene. The defence also pointed out delays in recording witness statements and argued that such statements may be unreliable. It was further submitted that both accused have been in custody for over two years, with little likelihood of the trial concluding soon, thus warranting bail. The High Court noted that the investigation has unearthed substantial incriminating material indicating the petitioners’ central role in the conspiracy. The Court observed that call detail records show multiple communications made by Sahajhan Sekh during the crucial period. Witness statements corroborate that the accused instructed individuals to assemble and attack officials. The scale and nature of the violence suggest premeditated orchestration. The accused are influential figures in the locality, raising concerns about witness intimidation. The Court also took note of allegations that witnesses had been threatened, even during the accused’s custody, and emphasized that further investigation is still ongoing. While acknowledging the principle against prolonged pre-trial detention, the Court held that the seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the potential risk of interference in the investigation, outweighs the petitioners’ claim for bail at this stage. “The petitioners do not deserve a favourable order at this stage,” the Court concluded, dismissing both bail applications. Case Details Case Title: Sk. Sahajhan @ Sahajhan Sekh v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation Citation: JURISHOUR-448-HC-2026(CAL) Case No.: CRM (DB) 650 of 2025 Date: 19.03.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv. Counsel For Respondent: Dhiraj Trivedi, Sr. Adv. Click Here To Read Order Read More: Financial Intelligence Unit-India Partners with DGGI Hyderabad To Trace Betting Syndicate Beneficiaries

Bail Denied to Key Accused in Mob Attack on ED Officials During PDS Scam Probe: Calcutta High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

Re-Transportation of Machinery for Testing Is Not ‘Supply’; Only E-Way Bill Penalty Applicable, GST Demand Unsustainable: Karnataka HC

CBIC Discontinues Manual Documentation for Duty-Free Imported Containers to Boost Ease of Doing Business

AO Can’t Reject DCF Share Valuation and Substitute NAV Method for Section 56(2)(viib) Addition: ITAT

Marriage Gifts and Household Cash Retention Can’t Be Rejected on Mere Suspicion: ITAT Deletes Demonetisation Addition

More like this

Re-Transportation of Machinery for Testing Is Not ‘Supply’; Only E-Way Bill Penalty Applicable, GST Demand Unsustainable: Karnataka HC

CBIC Discontinues Manual Documentation for Duty-Free Imported Containers to Boost Ease of Doing Business

AO Can’t Reject DCF Share Valuation and Substitute NAV Method for Section 56(2)(viib) Addition: ITAT

About us

Company

Categories