Supreme Court Questions ED's Conviction Rate While Considering Bail Plea Of Partha Chatterjee

The Supreme Court today, while hearing former West Bengal Minister Partha Chatterjee's petition seeking bail in a cash-for-jobs alleged scam case remarked that it would have understood the Enforcement Directorate's opposition if it had a higher conviction rate.

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. 

While the Bench was inclined to grant Chatterjee interim bail to test the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) suspicion that Chatterjee could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if liberty is granted to him, the Bench ultimately postponed its decision to Monday. The Bench sought details about the period of custody undergone by him in a connected case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

During the course of the hearing, Justice Bhuyan asked Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju who was appearing for ED, "What is your conviction rate? If it is 60-70 percent, we can understand (your opposition). It is very poor." In response, Raju urged the Court must see ED matters on a case-to-case basis, adding that on Chatterjee, the agency has a "strong prima facie case" and that "this is not a case where there is going to be no conviction."

To Raju's statement attributing guilt, Justice Kant retorted, "Mr. Raju, these are all speculative things. You may be ultimately right. But we can't say yes, we can't say no. This will depend upon the nature of evidence and its appreciation by the Trial Court."

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Chatterjee, asked the Bench to appreciate the fact that he has been in judicial custody for two years and four months and "the investigation is long over, and the chargesheet filed". Rohatgi submitted that the trial is unlikely to be completed anytime soon since there are a total of 183 witnesses.

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 law. Rohatgi drew 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. 

On the ED's argument that Chatterjee was the "prime accused" since he was the Minister of Education at the time of the alleged scam and cannot be allowed parity with his co-accused who have secured bail, Rohatgi cited the cases of former Delhi Minister Manish Sisodia and V. Senthil Balaji, a Minister in the Tamil Nadu cabinet, both of whom are out on bail.

During the hearing, Justice Kant asked Raju, "Assuming that he is enlarged on bail, what is the impediment likely to be caused?" Witnesses would be influenced and "there will be retractions of statements left, right and centre," Raju cautioned.

The Bench will take up Chatterjee's matter for further hearing on Monday, December 2, and is likely to pronounce its decision on his petition.

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