Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Concast Steel MD's Bail Plea In ₹6,210 Crore Money Laundering Case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the bail plea of Sanjay Kumar Surekha, Chairman and Managing Director of Concast Steel and Power Ltd. (CSPL).

Surekha has been in custody since December 18, 2024, in an Enforcement Directorate money laundering case. The case concerns the alleged diversion and laundering of ₹6,210.72 crore.

Surekha is challenging the Calcutta High Court's November 14, 2025, order rejecting his bail plea.

The High Court had found prima facie material indicating his involvement in the alleged offence. It said CSPL's turnover was allegedly inflated to secure bank credit and funds were diverted through shell companies.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi reserved its order after hearing arguments from both sides.

During the hearing, the bench questioned the ED on the material supporting its allegation that Surekha was attempting to influence the investigation while in custody.

“Show us what is the material you have placed before the High Court to show that he was trying to influence the investigation?” the Court asked.

The bench further questioned the ED: “On what basis are you attributing this to him? Any material which was placed before the High Court?”

When Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, appearing for the ED, referred to alleged communications involving Surekha's family members, the court asked, “Even according to you, he has contacted his family members. Not to the witnesses?”

The ED submitted that phones had been recovered from the correctional facility. However, it could not directly trace the phones to Surekha.

The bench questioned the basis for attributing their use to him. The Court then reserved its order.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Surekha, submitted that his client has been in custody since December 18, 2024.

He pointed out that the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is seven years.

Rohatgi argued that the investigation was substantially complete. He pointed out that the prosecution complaint and supplementary complaints had already been filed.

He further submitted that Surekha had not been interrogated even once while in custody.

Rohatgi also relied on the scale of the proceedings. He submitted that there are 97 accused, 48 witnesses and around 15,000 pages of relied-upon documents.

He argued that an early conclusion of the trial was therefore unlikely.

Rohatgi challenged the allegation that Surekha was influencing witnesses or operating his companies from jail.

Referring to a surprise inspection at the correctional facility, he submitted that no mobile phone had been recovered from Surekha.

“I never had a full blown interrogation in custody, and I have not spoken to anybody. So these are allegations,” Rohatgi submitted.

He also relied on Surekha's prolonged custody and the constitutional protection against unreasonable delay.

“Constitutional courts have frowned upon long detention of the accused in custody due to delay in investigation or trial,” Rohatgi submitted.

Opposing bail, the ED described Surekha as the “mastermind behind the financial fraud and the money laundering activities conducted through the company and its network of associated companies.”

The agency alleged that Surekha orchestrated transactions to fraudulently inflate CSPL's turnover. It alleged that he used the inflated turnover to secure extensive credit facilities from banks.

The ED further alleged that funds were diverted to shell companies under his control. It said part of the proceeds was used for personal expenditure and luxury acquisitions.

According to the High Court order, the ED had alleged that 62 shell companies were created. It said 34 persons, including Surekha's relatives and employees, were made dummy directors.

The agency had also alleged that 20 other companies controlled by his relatives and employees were involved in the money laundering activities.

The High Court had rejected Surekha's challenge to the legality of his arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

It held that the arresting officer had recorded the grounds of arrest and reasons to believe after considering material collected during the investigation.

The High Court also considered Surekha's prolonged custody while deciding his bail plea.

It noted that constitutional courts have frowned upon prolonged detention due to delay in investigation or trial. However, it held that the case involved a serious economic offence and that further investigation was still continuing.

The High Court also noted that, according to the investigation, Surekha was in constant touch with his accountants, employees and relatives from custody.

It further noted that Surekha was allegedly funding other co-accused and that his companies were continuing to collect funds from financial institutions.

The High Court ultimately held that Surekha did not satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.

It accordingly rejected his bail plea.