“He Is A First-Time Offender”: Calcutta HC Grants Bail To Suspended TMC Leader Kuntal Ghosh Accused Of Corruption In Recruitment Process Of Primary School Teachers
The Calcutta High Court granted bail to Kuntal Ghosh accused of corruption in the recruitment process of the primary school teachers after observing that he is a first-time offender.
The Court allowed the bail application by the suspended TMC Youth Wing member Kuntal Ghosh (Petitioner) who the CBI accused under Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) read with Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh reiterated, “ The petitioner is little short of completing one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment as laid down under section 479 of the 2023 Act. It is not in dispute that he is a first-time offender and has not been convicted of any offence earlier. In view of the evidence, both oral and documentary, to be examined by the learned Trial Court, completion of trial within the time frame in terms of section 479 of the 2023 Act is almost impossible. Rejecting the prayer of the petitioner at this stage and granting him liberty to renew his prayer upon completion of the said time frame shall be a futile exercise. Article 21 of the Constitution and section 479 of the 2023 Act complement each other and need to be construed in harmony with each other.”
Advocate Joydeep Biswas appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Phiroze Edulji represented the Respondent.
The Petitioner was arrested in 2023 following the registration of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2022. This was based on an FIR registered by the CBI accusing the Petitioner of facilitating illegal recruitment of candidates as teachers and other staff in exchange for financial benefits. He was named in the ED’s third complaint based on statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which implicated him in collecting Rs. 3.25 crores from 325 candidates and Rs. 16 crores for arranging illegal appointments.
The Petitioner submitted that he had been in custody for about twenty-two months without trial, with the investigation against him already completed.
The ED opposed the bail application pointing out the Petitioner’s alleged role in illegal recruitment processes and claiming that he was directly involved in facilitating illegal appointments. The ED argued that economic offences constitute grave crimes affecting public administration and trust, requiring a different approach in bail matters.
The High Court noted that the Petitioner had been in custody for about one-third of the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
“This Court is not oblivious of the fact that the aspect of continued detention of the petitioner was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in C.R.M. (DB) 681 of 2024. The Hon’ble Division Bench held that further detention of the petitioner was necessary to insulate the process of further investigation with regard to the nexus of the petitioner with the office bearers of the Board and to trace out the proceeds of crime which were rooted through the petitioner to other influential persons. Complaint of the present case was also taken note of by the Hon’ble Division Bench,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court observed, “The right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-under trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional Court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Bail Application.
Cause Title: Kuntal Ghosh v. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Joydeep Biswas, Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Debroop Majumder, Kaushik Ghosh and Victor Chatterjee
Respondent: Advocates Phiroze Edulji and Anamika Pandey
