  In "Comment on Supersymmetry, PT-symmetry and spectral bifurcation"
\cite{BQ1}, Bagchi and Quesne correctly show the presence of a class of states
for the complex Scarf-II potential in the unbroken PT-symmetry regime, which
were absent in \cite{AP}. However, in the spontaneously broken PT-symmetry
case, their argument is incorrect since it fails to implement the condition for
the potential to be PT-symmetric: $C^{PT}[2(A-B)+\alpha]=0$. It needs to be
emphasized that in the models considered in \cite{AP}, PT is spontaneously
broken, implying that the potential is PT- symmetric, whereas the ground state
is not. Furthermore, our supersymmetry (SUSY)-based 'spectral bifurcation'
holds \textit{independent} of the $sl(2)$ symmetry consideration for a large
class of PT-symmetric potentials.
