Supreme Court of India
Partha Chatterjee vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 13 December, 2024
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
2024 INSC 975 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5266 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 13870 OF 2024) Partha Chatterjee ….Appellant versus Directorate of Enforcement .…Respondents 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2024.12.13
13:18:00 IST
time to time.
Reason:
Page | 1
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
Page | 2
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/-.
Page | 3
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) (Trial Court) on 25.07.2022 allowed the ED custody of the
Appellant for a period of ten days, which was further extended till
05.08.2022 vide order dated 03.08.2022. The Trial Court on
05.08.2022 remanded the Appellant to judicial custody, where he
has remained since. The ED thereafter filed ML Case No. 13/2022
(ED Case) under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA before the Trial
Court against the Appellant, his associate and various dummy
companies that are claimed to have been set up by the Appellant.
9. At this juncture, given that the Appellant is involved in various
investigations, owing to the racket of illegal appointment of
unmerited candidates to the posts of Primary School Teachers,
Page | 4
Assistant Teachers for Class IX-X and Class XI-XII, Group C Posts
and Group D Posts, it is useful to provide clarity and avoid any
confusion regarding the current status of the different cases,
through the following table:
Sl. Investigating Case Details Date of Current Status
No. Authority Arrest
1. ED ECIR/KLZO11/19/2022 23.07.2022 Appellant in judicial
(Primary Teachers custody since
Recruitment Scam) 05.08.2022. Complaint
filed.
2. ED ECIR/KLZO11/17/1022 – Under investigation.
(Group C and D Posts
Recruitment Scam)
3. ED ECIR/KLZO11/18/1022 – Under investigation.
(Assistant Teachers Recruitment Scam, Class IX-XII) 4. CBI RC No. 6/2022 – Predicate 01.10.2024 Chargesheet and offense (Primary teachers supplementary recruitment scam) chargesheet filed. Further investigation underway. 5. CBI RC No. 2/2022 (Group D - Charge sheeted in the posts recruitment scam) second prosecution complaint. 6. CBI RC No. 5/2022 (Group C 16.09.2024 Charge sheeted in the posts recruitment scam) main prosecution complaint. 7. CBI RC No. 3/2022 (Class IX-X - Charge sheeted in the teachers recruitment scam) third prosecution complaint. 8. CBI RC No. 4/2022 (Class XI- - Charge sheeted in the XII teachers recruitment second prosecution scam) complaint.
10. That being the state of affairs, the Appellant filed a bail application
before the Trial Court in connection with the ED Case, which was
rejected on 03.08.2023. The Appellant then sought bail before the
High Court but the same came to be declined vide the impugned
Page | 5
judgement dated 30.04.2024. The grounds for such rejection were
based on the statements made by witnesses under Section 50 of the
PMLA as well as other corroborating material, owing to which the
High Court held that the Appellant had failed to overcome the twin
conditions postulated by Section 45 of the PMLA.
11. The aggrieved Appellant is thus before us seeking bail, inter alia, on
the following grounds: (i) the prolonged period of incarceration of
over two years; (ii) the Appellant was neither named nor
chargesheeted in the predicate offence; (iii) the Appellant does not
have any criminal antecedents and has deep roots in society; (iv) he
is not a flight risk or likely to tamper with evidence or witnesses; (v)
no cash was recovered from the Appellant during search and seizure
by the respondent ED; (vi) the Appellant is 72 years of age and
suffers from multiple health ailments; (vii) the Appellant has already
spent one-third of the total sentence prescribed for the offence and
thus, is entitled to bail under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS); and (viii) there is no hope in the
trial commencing in view of the 442 documents and 183 witnesses
cited for examination. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Learned Senior Counsel,
lastly contended that the Appellant ought to be granted bail on the
ground of parity, considering that his co-accused have already been
released on bail.
Page | 6
12. Per contra, Shri S.V. Raju, Learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, has opposed the prayer for bail, urging primarily that: (i) the
provisions of the first proviso to Section 479 of the BNSS would not
be applicable as the Appellant is not a first time offender; (ii) the
Appellant would not be entitled to bail in view of Section 479(2) of
BNSS, as multiple cases are registered against him; (iii) the
Appellant being in a high ranking position of a Minister and having
indulged in an offence involving moral turpitude cannot seek parity
with other co-accused who are much lower in rank and status than
him; (iv) the close acquaintance of the Appellant and from whose
residence huge amount of valuables were recovered has in her
statement under Section 50 of the PMLA expressed apprehension of
threat to life at the hands of the Appellant; and (v) the seizure and
attachment, in this case, stands at a hefty Rs. 151.2 crores, which
are the proceeds of crime generated out of criminal activities related
to scheduled offences under the PMLA.
13. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully examined
the material on record. At the outset, it is worth reiterating that this
Court, through a catena of decisions, has consistently emphasized
that prolonged incarceration of an accused awaiting trial unjustly
deprives them of their right to personal liberty. Even statutory
embargoes on the grant of bail must yield when weighed against the
Page | 7
paramount importance of the right to life and liberty under Article
21 of the Constitution, particularly in cases where such
incarceration extends over an unreasonably long period without
conclusion of trial.
14. Equally well-established is the principle that the grant of bail must
be determined based on the unique circumstances of each case,
balanced against settled factors such as the gravity of the offence,
the nature of the allegations, likelihood of interference with the
ongoing investigation, the possibility of evidence tampering, threat
or influence over the material witnesses, the societal impact of such
release, and the risk of the accused absconding among others.
15. In this context, the argument that the Appellant’s position as a
Minister entitles him to any special consideration does not hold merit
from either perspective. Impartiality is a prerequisite to the Rule of
Law, wherein decisions are based on the factual matrix of the case
as opposed to the individual’s position or influence. In this vein, this
Court has emphatically clarified that while an 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.
Page | 8
16. Instead, the claim of the Appellant must be examined through the
lens of various pleas he has taken to highlight his mitigating
circumstances as well as the adverse impact it may cause in the
wake of allegations of playing with the future of thousands of well-
merited aspirants and the undue benefits accrued to undeserving
persons at the cost of these unsuccessful candidates. This later
perspective underscores the broader societal harm caused by such
actions and the erosion of trust in the integrity of public institutions.
In this light, the statement of the Appellant’s close associate(s)
recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA assumes enormous
significance, as it constitutes prima facie evidence linking the
Appellant to substantial heaps of bribe money recovered from the
associate’s residence and company premises. Additionally, the
Appellant’s prayer for bail must also be juxtaposed against the
apprehension of threat to life expressed by the said associate in her
statement. Having said so, we may clarify that the question of the
evidentiary value of the statement recorded under Section 50 of the
PMLA has not been addressed at this stage so that no prejudice is
caused to parties.
17. We, however, cannot be oblivious to the settled principles that a
suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial
incarceration should not amount to punitive detention. The Court
Page | 9
would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do
not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or
influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the
fundamental doctrine of a fair trial.
18. Striking a balance between these considerations and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, we deem it
appropriate to dispose of this appeal with the following directions:
a. Since the charge sheet in the ED Case (ECIR No. KLZO-
11/19/2022) has already been filed but charges are yet to be
framed, we direct the Trial Court to decide on framing of charges
before the commencement of the winter vacations and/or before
31.12.2024, whichever is earlier;
b. The Trial Court shall thereafter fix a date within the second and
third week of January 2025 for recording the statements of such
prosecution witnesses who are the most material or vulnerable.
All such witnesses, especially those who have expressed
apprehension of danger to their lives (who might be two or three),
will be examined on these dates;
c. The Appellant and his counsel are directed to extend full
cooperation to the Trial Court for the recording of statements of
these witnesses;
Page | 10
d. The witnesses will be examined without prejudice to the
Appellant’s right to challenge the decision on framing of charges
if the decision is adverse and if he is so aggrieved. However, upon
such challenge, no stay on trial shall be granted;
e. In the event the examination of these witnesses is not completed
on the dates fixed due to unforeseen circumstances, the Trial
Court may do so lastly in the third and fourth week of January,
2025;
f. The Petitioner shall thereafter be released on bail on
01.02.2025, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court;
g. In the event that the Trial Court is able to complete the
directions put forth in (b) and (e) at an earlier date, then the
Appellant may be released on bail immediately thereafter and
prior to the given date of 01.02.2025;
h. Any attempt made by the Appellant to influence or threaten the
witnesses, directly or indirectly, shall entail cancellation of the
relief of bail;
i. The Appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on every date
of hearing, and no unnecessary adjournment shall be sought on
his behalf. If the Appellant is found involved in prolonging the
Page | 11
trial, it shall be taken as a valid ground for cancellation of bail;
and
j. The Appellant shall not be appointed to any public office (except
that he shall continue to be a Member of the West Bengal
Legislative Assembly) during the pendency of trial.
19. We find it necessary to clarify that these directions pertain only to
the ED Case pending against the Appellant (ECIR No. KLZO-
11/19/2022). We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
any of the other pending investigations, including the recent arrest
of the Appellant in one of the cases by the CBI.
20. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
………..………………… J.
(SURYA KANT)
……………………………J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI
DATED: 13.12.2024
Page | 12