Supreme Court: Anup Majee Bail Cancellation Plea Gets Expedited Hearing

• The Supreme Court has scheduled an expedited hearing for the Enforcement Directorate's plea to cancel Anup Majee's bail in an alleged ₹2,700-crore coal scam.
• The ED is challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to grant Majee anticipatory bail, which was based on the satisfaction of PMLA Section 45 twin conditions.
• Anup Majee is accused of being a key organizer in a syndicate that illegally extracted over ₹2,742 crore worth of coal and laundered funds through shell companies.
• During the recent hearing, the ED sought time to respond to a nearly 400-page counter-affidavit from Majee, while Majee's counsel strongly opposed any interim relief for the agency.
• The Supreme Court heard the petition on September 3, 2026, and granted 'leave' to proceed, scheduling it for a short date for a comprehensive review of the legal arguments.

The ED's plea for bail cancellation underscores its persistent efforts to ensure stringent application of PMLA provisions, particularly concerning the twin conditions for bail.

The Supreme Court of India recently indicated it would schedule an expedited hearing for a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), seeking the cancellation of bail granted to Anup Majee, also known as Lala. This significant development pertains to the alleged ₹2,700-crore illegal coal mining scam in West Bengal, a case that has drawn considerable attention from the Directorate of Enforcement. The matter, titled *Directorate of Enforcement v. Anup Majee*, was heard by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, informed the court that the agency had just received a substantial counter-affidavit, nearly 400 pages long, from Majee's legal team. Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the response was unusually extensive, resembling an appeal in its scope. While asserting the strength of the ED's case, Raju requested an early date to allow the agency sufficient time to prepare its response to the detailed counter-affidavit.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Majee, vehemently opposed any interim relief for the ED, arguing that such a measure would cause severe prejudice to his client. The bench acknowledged the need for both parties to have adequate time to present their arguments and indicated that the matter would be taken up on a short date. The Court subsequently recorded that "Leave was granted," signifying its decision to proceed with hearing the petition for Supreme Court Anup Majee bail cancellation.

The origins of this complex legal battle trace back to a 2020 First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This FIR alleged widespread illegal excavation and theft of coal from leasehold areas managed by Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL). Following this, on November 28, 2020, the Enforcement Directorate initiated its own investigation by registering an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The ED's allegations against Anup Majee are substantial, portraying him as a central figure in a syndicate responsible for the illicit mining and transportation of stolen coal. The agency claims that coal valued at over ₹2,742 crore was illegally extracted from ECL leasehold areas through a highly coordinated operation. Furthermore, the Enforcement Directorate asserts that it recovered financial records maintained by Majee’s accountant, which purportedly detail the proceeds of crime generated from these illegal mining activities. The investigation also suggests that the syndicate utilized shell companies with dummy directors to obscure and launder the illicit funds, adding layers to the financial irregularities in the Anup Majee illegal mining case.

Anup Majee had previously secured anticipatory bail from the Delhi High Court in connection with the ED's proceedings. The High Court's decision was based on its observation that Majee had cooperated with the agency, appearing on multiple occasions, and that no arrest had been made despite the filing of prosecution complaints. Crucially, the Delhi High Court concluded that the statutory "twin conditions" stipulated under Section 45 of the PMLA had been satisfied, thereby granting him protection from arrest.

It is this specific order that the Enforcement Directorate has now challenged before the Supreme Court, initiating a significant Supreme Court PMLA bail challenge. The ED's plea for bail cancellation underscores its persistent efforts to ensure stringent application of PMLA provisions, particularly concerning the twin conditions for bail. The arguments presented during the recent Supreme Court hearing highlighted the procedural complexities, with the ED seeking time to respond to Majee's extensive counter-affidavit, while Majee's counsel strongly opposed any interim measures that could prejudice his client's existing bail status.

The Supreme Court's eventual ruling in the *Directorate of Enforcement v. Anup Majee* case holds considerable importance, particularly for the interpretation and application of PMLA Section 45 twin conditions bail. This ED plea coal scam bail challenge reflects the agency's rigorous approach to prosecuting economic offenses and its determination to contest bail orders in high-profile money laundering investigations. The outcome could set a precedent for how courts assess the satisfaction of bail conditions under the PMLA, especially in cases where accused individuals have cooperated with investigations but have not yet been arrested. The Supreme Court heard the matter on September 3, 2026, and granted 'leave' to proceed, indicating it would be taken up on a short date for a comprehensive review of the legal arguments. The Enforcement Directorate Anup Majee case therefore remains a critical one to watch for legal practitioners and those involved in economic crime litigation.

This development underscores the Enforcement Directorate's persistent efforts to challenge bail orders in significant PMLA cases. Lawyers advising clients on economic offenses, particularly those involving the PMLA, should closely watch how the Supreme Court addresses the ED's plea for bail cancellation and its interpretation of the 'twin conditions' under Section 45, as it could influence future anticipatory bail proceedings.

Source: Original reporting via legal news portal.