SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 1184

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Partha Chatterjee – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 5266 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13870 of 2024)
Decided On : 13-12-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv. Mr. Anirban Guhathakurta, Adv. Mr. Bharat Monga, Adv. Mr. Ayush Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Amulya Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Muthu Thangathurai, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. Mr. Animesh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Bhawna Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Deepika Gahlot, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar Arya, Adv. Mr. Hitharth Raja, Adv. Ms. Agrimaa Singh, Adv. Mr. Harsh Paul Singh, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Satwik Reddy Sudireddy, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Offence of money laundering – Appellant has been a Member of West Bengal Legislative Assembly since 2001 – Prolonged incarceration of accused awaiting trial unjustly deprives them of their right to personal liberty – Even statutory embargoes on grant of bail must yield when weighed against paramount importance of right to life and liberty under Article 21 of Constitution.
(2) While accused person’s official status should not be grounds for denying bail, it also cannot constitute a special consideration to grant bail if otherwise no case is made out to provide such relief.

Headnote:

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 479 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Bail – Offence of money laundering – Appellant has been a Member of West Bengal Legislative Assembly since 2001 – Prolonged incarceration of accused awaiting trial unjustly deprives them of their right to personal liberty – Even statutory embargoes on grant of bail must yield when weighed against paramount importance of right to life and liberty under Article 21 of Constitution, particularly in cases where such incarceration extends over an unreasonably long period without conclusion of trial – Grant of bail must be determined based on unique circumstances of each case, balanced against settled factors such as gravity of offence, nature of allegations, likelihood of interference with ongoing investigation, possibility of evidence tampering, threat or influence over material witnesses, societal impact of such release, and risk of accused absconding among others – Impartiality is a prerequisite to Rule of Law, wherein decisions are based on factual matrix of case as opposed to individual’s position or influence – While accused person’s official status should not be grounds for denying bail, it also cannot constitute a special consideration to grant bail if otherwise no case is made out to provide such relief – Official positions, regardless of their stature, lose their relevance for the purpose of exercising judicial discretion judiciously – Suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention – Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, actions that undermine fundamental doctrine of a fair trial – Bail granted against stern conditions. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18)

Facts of the case:

Appellant filed bail application before Trial Court in connection with ED Case, which was rejected on 03.08.2023. Appellant then sought bail before High Court but same came to be declined vide impugned judgement dated 30.04.2024. Grounds for such rejection were based on statements made by witnesses under Section 50 of PMLA as well as other corroborating material, owing to which High Court held that Appellant had failed to overcome twin conditions postulated by Section 45 of PMLA.

Findings of Court:

Any attempt made by Appellant to influence or threaten witnesses, directly or indirectly, shall entail cancellation of relief of bail.

Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The Appellant has been a Member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly since 2001, and was a member of the ruling party of the State at the relevant time. He was inducted as a Minister in the West Bengal State cabinet between 2011 and 2022 and seems to have held the post of the State Education Minister since 2016. During his tenure as the State Education Minister, recruitments to various posts like: (i) Primary School Teachers; (ii) Assistant School Teachers; (iii) Group C staff; and (iv) Group D staff, took place from time to time.

3. Writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Calcutta (High Court), questioning the legitimacy of the procedures followed in the aforementioned recruitments. Most pertinently, proceedings were initiated by unsuccessful candidates in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, vide WPA No. 9979/2022, alleging corrupt practices in the recruitment process of Primary School Teachers. In the light of serious allegations having been made, the High Court on 08.06.2022 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter and also to register a case in this regard.

4. Consequently, the CBI registered FIR RC0102022A0006 (Predicate FIR) on 09.06.2022, under Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), as well as Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), against certain functionaries of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, and one Ranjan@Chandan Mondal who was allegedly engaged in an unholy nexus with varied authorities, so as to facilitate appointments of primary school teachers in exchange for substantial sums of money. The said FIR was registered on the basis that the selection process of Assistant Teachers and Primary School Teachers had been conducted in a dubious manner, considering that the answer key for the TET was designed in a way that would deprive eligible candidates and, instead, facilitate back door entry to such ineligible candidates who submitted blank examination papers.

5. The Predicate FIR dated 09.06.2022 registered by the CBI, led the Enforcement Directorate (ED) also to take cognizance and register ECIR No. KLZO-11/19/2022 on 24.06.2022, against the aforestated office bearers and Ranjan@Chandan Mondal, containing the same allegations as in the CBI Case. On this basis, a prima facie case for the offence of ‘money laundering’ under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) was stated to have been made out.

6. The ED conducted a raid at the premises of the Appellant on 22.07.2022 and recorded his statement under Section 17 of the PMLA. During the said search, incriminating documents pertaining to: (i) twelve immoveable properties in the name of the Appellant’s close associate; and (ii) documents showcasing the appointment of Group D staff such as admit cards of candidates, intimation letters for verification of testimonials and personality test, application forms etc. are claimed to have been recovered. The searches conducted at the residential premises of the Appellant’s close aide further led to the seizure of cash amounting to Rs. 21.90 crores and gold jewellery amounting to Rs. 76,97,100/-.

7. Additionally, based on the interrogation of the alleged close associate and scrutiny of the documents already seized, further search was conducted, whereby cash amounting to Rs. 27.90 crores and gold amounting to Rs. 4.31 crores were seized from the premises connected to companies that de facto were stated to belong to the Appellant, where he had allegedly appointed dummy directors. A deeper probe further revealed that these companies had been used to acquire, possess, conceal, appropriate, project and claim large- scale proceeds of crime.

8. In the wake of these allegations, the Appellant was arrested by the ED under Section 19 of the PMLA, on 23.07.2022. The Special Court (CBI) (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top