Cannot Give Impression That Corrupt People Get Bail, But Custody Cannot Go On Endlessly Either: SC While Reserving Order In Partha Chatterjee's Bail Plea

A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing Chatterjee's Special Leave Petition against the Calcutta High Court's Order passed in April this year refusing him bail in a case that relates to alleged corruption in the recruitment of assistant school teachers in West Bengal.

"What message do you want us to give to the society at large? That corrupt people can get bail like this?... On the face of it, you are a corrupt person. Crores of rupees have been found in your premises." Justice Kant told Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Chatterjee.

The Bench had just perused the material placed on record by the Enforcement Directorate, leading to Justice Kant saying that huge sums of money had been recovered at a premise allegedly owned by Chatterjee. Rohatgi vehemently opposed claiming that it was not owned by him.

Submissions by the ED, part of which the Bench mentioned, say that Chatterjee was in "de facto control" of certain companies from whose premises money was recovered and that Chatterjee had appointed dummy directors. "These are all allegations," Rohatgi said, dismissing the submissions. "At this stage, we are only concerned with allegations." Justice Kant remarked.

The Bench then turned to Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, and said, "We can't keep him endlessly (in custody)... After all, we have to balance the rights."

Reading from a chart submitted by ASG Raju, the Bench noticed that for two ED cases, separate from the present one, it is mentioned 'under examination, not yet examined'. This led to the Bench questioning, "While he is in judicial, can't you take him on remand?", with Justice Bhuyan lamenting, "For two years, you have not examined him."

Raju said it is not the ED's case that Chatterjee should not be granted bail as he is yet to be examined in other cases. "My case is, look at the facts. Because he is involved in other cass, he is not entitled to bail." Filing an application for remand is an "independent right, which I will exercise," he stressed.

"Even if he granted bail in the (present) ED case, he is not getting bail in the two CBI cases. He will not come out." Raju submitted, immediately leading Justice Bhuyan pointing out the flaw in the argument, saying, "He will not be released therefore don't grant him bail here? That can't be." and a protest by Rohatgi, "This is a great sadistic pleasure, that even if you succeed in the Supreme Court, you will get nothing."

Rohatgi urged the Court's attention to the fact that Chatterjee was shown as being arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation on October 1, 2024, while he was in judicial custody and while his SLP was pending before the Supreme Court. "Because if your lordships grant me bail, I will have to apply there (for bail in a different case). Ultimately three or four years will go by."

Rohatgi asked, "Is the idea that if you get bail in one, we'll arrest you in second, we'll arrest you in third? If this is the idea, it will be a complete violation of Article 21." and asked Court to grant him bail, even suggesting that a condition that Chatterjee shall not enter West Bengal during the course of the trial, may be put. "This can't be a case of pre-trial punishment."

In the last hearing on November 27, Rohatgi submitted that Chatterjee, not having been convicted yet of any criminal offence and having served a third of the maximum punishment of seven years that can be granted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was entitled to bail under Section 479 (Maximum period for which undertrial prisoner can be detained) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Section 479 of the BNSS provides relief to undertrial prisoners who have undergone a set duration of incarceration in proportion to the maximum imprisonment specified for that offence under the law.

ASG Raju today submitted that Chatterjee was not entitled to bail under the said provision on account of Sub-Section (2) of the provision which declares that where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, a person shall not be released on bail by the Court.

In the last hearing, Rohatgi had drawn special attention to the proviso to Section 479 of the BNSS which makes a specific provision for first time offenders mandating that they shall be released on bond by the Court after undergoing detention for a period of one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment, specified for such offence under law.

Cause Title: Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement [SLP(Crl) 13870/2024]