'You're A Corrupt Person' : Supreme Court Says While Reserving Order On Ex-WB Minister Partha Chatterjee's Bail Plea In Money Laundering Case

The Supreme Court today reserved order on the bail petition filed by former West Bengal Education Minister and now MLA Partha Chatterjee in the money laundering case arising out of the West Bengal cash-for-jobs scam.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the Enforcement Directorate, opposed the grant of bail citing the role of the the accused in the case. "Even if he gets bail in this case, he is not coming out as he is in custody in the CBI case," ASG said. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Chatterjee, asked how could this be an argument to oppose bail. "This is just sadistic pleasure. Everybody else has got bail," Rohtgi said.

At this juncture, Justice Kant pointed out that other accused persons were not Ministers. When Rohatgi said that no recovery had been made from him, Justice Kant said that as a Minister, he would not keep money with him "obviously." When Rohatgi continued arguing, Justice Kant got displeased and commented in a raised voice, "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?"

When Rohatgi pointed out that he has undergone custody for 2.5 years, Justice Kant said, "So what? Crores have been recovered from your premises."

Justice Kant said that the allegations are that the bribe money was taken from Class-IV employees and Assistant Primary Teachers and the proceeds of crime were diverted to dummy companies and proxy persons.

"Properties were purchased in joint name of Chatterjee and Arpita...after becoming Minister, you placed dummy persons...earlier you were yourself there..You are Minister, obviously you are not going to order investigation against yourself. Investigation started only because of judicial intervention. Allegation is 28 crores have been recovered... of course they would not have been kept in residence," Justice Kant said.

Rohatgi placed reliance on the recent judgments which granted bail in money laundering cases citing the unlikelihood of early completion of trial.

ASG informed that a supplementary chargesheet was filed last week and that charges could be framed in four months if Chatteerjee cooperated.  Rohatgi argued that apart from statements recorded under S.50 PMLA, there was no other evidence. He relied on the Prem Prakash judgment which held that the ED case cannot start with S.50 statements. ASG refuted Rohatgi, saying S.50 statements are admissible in evidence and they were corroborated by the recoveries of the crime proceeds.

Rohatgi's argument of parity with co-accused who have got bail did not impress Justice Kant, who said that a Minister has to be seen in a different light. "Don't claim parity," Justice Kant said. Rohatgi then cited the judgment granting bail to TN Minister Senthil Balaji. "There is no such thing as parity for Ministers...there is no Association of Ministers in the country," Justice Kant said in a lighter vein.

ASG Raju said that the denial of bail will not cause any prejudice to Chatterjee because he would not come out anyway as he was in custody in the CBI case. Rather, the denial of bail would benefit him since he can claim set-off after trial. "In fact, he will stand to gain if he is not enlarged on bail as he can claim set-off later," ASG said. Justice Bhuyan at this juncture said, "If he is entitled to bail, he is entitled. Don't say he won't come out, you don't know what trial court will do. Our Court has held that deprivation of liberty for one day is a day too many."

On November 27, the Court had 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. Though it was inclined to grant bail, the matter was adjourned for placing of details about custody period undergone by Chatterjee in connected CBI cases.

Background

Chatterjee filed the present petition aggrieved by Calcutta High Court's denial of bail to him in the PMLA case arising out of the scam, involving illegal recruitment of Assistant Teachers under the West Bengal Board of Primary Education.

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:

"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