Calcutta High Court Delivers Split Verdict On Bail Plea Of Ex-State Education Minister Partha Chatterjee, Four Others Accused In Cash-For-Jobs Scam

The Calcutta High Court has delivered a split verdict on the bail pleas of Partha Chatterjee, former State Education Minister, and four others, accused in the infamous cash for jobs recruitment scam case. 

While the division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray was considering bail pleas by the accused, Justice Banerjee granted bail to all accused, while Justice Sinha Ray denied bail to Chatterjee, and four other officials from the education department, namely Subiresh Bhattacharjee, Kalyanmoy Gangopadhyay, Ashok Saha and Shanti Prasad Sinha.

The accused were all charged under various sections of the IPC and PMLA, and were high-ranking officials from the Education Department of the state government, and were accused of using their public offices for personal gain by demanding bribes in exchange for jobs at the department.

It was submitted by counsel that while investigation was still ongoing against some of the accused, the trial had not yet commenced, and several accused, including Chatterjee were senior citizens, who had been incarcerated for a considerable time.

In allowing the prayer for bail for all accused, Justice Arijit Banerjee held:

Keeping an under-trial in incarceration for an indefinite period of time would tantamount to pre-trial conviction. That is unknown to our criminal jurisprudence. The allegations against an accused person may be extremely grave. Still, the same have to be proved in a duly held trial before a competent Court. An accused person cannot be detained in judicial custody for a long period of time merely on the basis of allegations which are yet to be proved. The fundamental right of a person including an under-trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, includes his right to personal liberty and speedy conclusion of a trial. 

 If the State or the legal systemdoes not have the means to conclude a criminal trial within a reasonable period of time, the prosecution should not oppose the accused person's prayer for bail,other thanin exceptional circumstances some of which I have discussed above. Right to personal liberty is precious and perhaps the second most important fundamental right after right to life, he added.

The judge also stated that further custodial interrogation of the accused was not necessary and if material was unearthed against them, the CBI would be free to further question them.

In denying bail to Chatterjee, and four others, Justice Apurba Sinha Ray held:

The record reveals that the present applicants were the mastermind and they orchestrated the entire scam. They cannot be equated with the accused like Prasanna Kumar Roy, Jiban Krishna Saha who actually acted as touts or collecting agents. The five applicants namely Dr. Subires Bhattacharya @ Subiresh Bhattacharjee, Sri. Ashok Kumar Saha, Dr. Kalyanmoy Ganguly, Sri. Santi Prasad Sinha, Dr. Partha Chatterjee as stated above are still influential, and there are chances of manipulating, influencing, intimidating witnesses, if they are enlarged on bail. In view of the above, I am not inclined to allow the prayers for bail of the said applicants at this stage. Accordingly, the relevant bail applications are rejected.

In light of the above differing opinions, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for necessary assignment orders.

Case: In the matter of : Dr. Subires Bhattacharya @ Subiresh Bhattacharjee V. The Central Bureau of Investigation and connected matters

Case No: CRM (DB) 173 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 252

Click here to read order