Partha Chatterjee's Bail : Supreme Court Sets Deadline For His Custody In ED Case As Feb 1, 2025; Expedites Trial

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 13) directed that former West Bengal Education Minister and MLA Partha Chatterjee can be released on bail on or before February 1, 2025, in the money laundering case arising out of a recruitment scam.

The Court directed the trial court to decide on framing of charges before the commencement of winter vacations or before December 31, 2024, whichever is earlier. The Court further directed the trial court to record the statements of prosecution witnesses who are most material and vulnerable in the second or third week of January 2025.  Subject to the completion of these steps, Chatterjee can be released on bail. In any case, he cannot be kept in custody beyond February 1, 2025.

The Court said that Chatterjee is at liberty to challenge any adverse order passed regarding the framing of charges; however, no stay shall be granted upon such challenge.  The Court directed the accused and the prosecution to extend full cooperation for the trial.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, despite observing that the materials suggested the existence of a prima facie case against the petitioner, granted relief following the well-settled principles that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention and a suspect cannot be kept in custody indefinitely.

The petitioner, on release, should not be appointed to any public office, except that he could continue to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly during the pendency of trial. These directions pertain only to the ED case, the Court clarified.

Chatterjee is also under custody in the CBI case arising out of the predicate offence.

Briefly put, Chatterjee filed the present petition aggrieved by Calcutta High Court's denial of bail to him in the money laundering case arising out of the scam, involving illegal recruitment of Assistant Teachers under the West Bengal Board of Primary Education. Over the course of hearings, the top Court expressed concerns about keeping an accused under custody for a long period without trial and flagged the low conviction rates in the cases prosecuted by ED.

However, on December 4, when the orders were reserved in the case, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju (for ED) laid great emphasis on Chatterjee's role, distinguishing it from that of other accused. When Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for Chatterjee) stressed that all co-accused in the case had obtained bail and Chatterjee had been in custody for about 2.5 years, Justice Kant expressed serious displeasure saying that on the face of it, Chatterjee was a corrupt person.

The judge also pointed out that co-accused persons were not Ministers. When Rohatgi said that no recovery had been made from Chatterjee, Justice Kant commented that as a Minister, he would "obviously" not have kept money with him. "On the face of it you are a corrupt person! What message you want us to send to society? That corrupt persons can get bail like this?" the judge remarked.

Background

Going through the material on record, including that regarding amounts of money, assets, and jewelry seized from Chatterjee and co-accused Arpita Mukherjee, the High Court stated in its order:

"I have taken into account the materials available in the instant case, particularly, the seizures, which were effected both in respect of the movable and immovable assets, the consistent version of the witnesses under section 50 of the PMLA as well as the corroborating materials which establishes the relationship between Partha Chatterjee and Arpita Mukherjee, which demonstrates trust, faith and confidence from both the sides, as the petitioner is the nominee in the bank account and insurance policies and the immoveable properties which have been purchased through different companies were in the name of Ms. Arpita Mukherjee. Thus the statement which points to the cash seizures and jewellery from the two flats does not at this stage create any circumstance in favour of the petitioner to overcome the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA."

Rejecting the arguments raised by Chatterjee's counsel, it held that corroborating material established a relationship between Chatterjee and Mukherjee and from him, crores of illegal proceeds had been seized. It was further stated that at that stage, Chatterjee had not been able to make out grounds to clear the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.

As far as pre-trial detention was concerned, the High Court held that Chatterjee would be entitled to a speedy trial, but could not be released at that stage due to contentions raised regarding the potential tampering of witnesses. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Case Title: PARTHA CHATTERJEE Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SLP(Crl) No. 13870/2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 987

Click here to read the judgment