IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
Partha Chatterjee – Petitioner
Versus
Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
CRM (SB) 180 of 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for bail related to an ongoing money laundering case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. emphasis on the importance of evidence and conditions for bail. (Para 37 , 46) |
| 3. decision to deny bail requested by the petitioner. (Para 58 , 59) |
JUDGMENT :
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
1. Petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with M.L. Case No. 13 of 2022 pending before the learned Special Judge, (CBI-I), Court, City Sessions Court, Calcutta arising out of ECIR No. KLZO-II/19/2022 dated 24.06.2022 under Section 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. The genesis of the present case relate to an order dated 08.06.2022 passed in WPA No. 9979 of 2022 (in the matter of Soumen Nandy –Vs. – The State of West Bengal & Ors.), wherein the CBI, ACB, Kolkata registered FIR being no. RC102022A0006 dated 09.06.2022 for offences punishable under sections 7, 7A & 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 against Chandan Mondal @ Ranjan, unknown office bearers of West Bengal Board of Primary Education and others for the alleged offences committed by unknown office bearers of West Bengal Board of Primary Education in conducting the selection process of Assistant teachers.
3. As sections 7, 7A & 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 fall under Paragraph 8 part 'A' of the schedule to the PMLA, 2002 and Sections 120B, 420, 467 & 471 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 1988 fall under Paragraph 1 part 'A' of the schedule to the PMLA, 2002 are the Scheduled Offence in terms of Section 2 (1) (y) of PMLA, 2002, enquiries were initiated under PMLA, 2002 against the accused persons and their associates after recording ECIR /KLZO-II/19/2022 dated 24.06.2022 against Chandan Mondal @ Ranjan, unknown office bearers of West Bengal Board of Primary Education and others.
4. It was alleged that the various orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta make it clear that the entire process of recruitment of assistant primary teachers were done illegally and for extraneous considerations. The role of all the influential persons were put under scrutiny by the Hon'ble High Court and accordingly a SIT of CBI was constituted by it for unearthing the corruption which is writ large in the entire selection process.
5. That the entire sequence of events pointed to a large-scale public scam wherein eligible and meritorious candidates were denied the opportunity of being appointed as school teachers and ineligible, below- ranked and even failed candidates were wrongly recommended and illegally appointed as teachers.
6. During the course of investigation, search and seizures were conducted at various places/premises. The searches conducted at the residential premises of Ms. Arpita Mukherjee situated at Tower-2, Flat No-1, Diamond City South, 58, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Karunamoyi, Tollygunge, Kolkata-700041, led to the seizure of cash amounting to Rs. 21.90 crores and gold jewellery worth 76,97,100/-Further, on the basis of the interrogation of the accused Ms. Arpita Mukherjee and scrutiny of the documents, a search dated 27/28.07.2022 was conducted which led to a further recovery and seizure of a huge and unprecedented cash amount of Rs. 27.90 crores and gold valued at Rs. 4.31 crores from the premises of Ms. Arpita Mukherjee situated at Flat-8A, Block-5, Club town heights, 14 B.T Road, Belghoria, Kolkata. It was also noticed that a company closely linked with the family members of the accused i.e. Shri Partha Chatterjee is registered at this very premises, from where the haul of huge cash of Rs. 27.90 crores and gold amounting to Rs. 4.31 crores have been seized. The aforesaid searches led to seizure of incriminating documents pertaining to this case.
7. The search conducted at the residential premises of Shri. Partha Chatterjee led to the seizure of incriminating digital devices and documents/records which pointed towards his active involvement in the illegal appointment of teachers. Further, property do
Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh –vs State of Maharashtra
Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement
Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat
Gurcharan Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N.
Krishna Mohan Tripathi vs State through Enforcement Directorate
Manish Sisodia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
P. Chidambaram Versus Directorate of Enforcement
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra
Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement
Satyendar Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement
State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty
Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India
Economic offences like money laundering under the PMLA warrant severe scrutiny for bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial while recognizing the gravity of the allegations and prolonged detenti....
Bail – Delay and long detention in custody cannot be a ground for grant of bail in cases of money laundering.
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
(1) Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting economy of country as a whole and ....
(1) Money Laundering – Right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution is overarching and sacrosanct – Constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to ac....
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as there were no reasonable grounds for believing that she had committed an off....
The court emphasized that bail under the PMLA requires satisfaction of twin conditions regarding the accused's guilt and likelihood of committing further offences, which were not met in this case.
In economic offences, bail is not a right; the burden rests on the applicant to show no risk of interference with justice or likelihood of guilt, reinforced by the position of the accused.
The offence of money laundering under PMLA is independent of underlying scheduled offences; involvement in any process related to proceeds of crime suffices for liability under Section 3.
The court considered the satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and the triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC, as well as the larger interest of the public and the State, and t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.