Legally Bharat

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

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *