TET Recruitment Scam| Hospitalisation During Incarceration Is Also Deemed To Be Judicial Custody: Calcutta HC Grants Bail To Sujay Krishna Bhadra
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to Sujay Krishna Bhadra, who was accused of the TET recruitment scam, after observing that his hospitalisation during the incarceration period is also deemed to be judicial custody.
The Court allowed the bail application filed by Sujay Krishna Bhadra (Petitioner) after noting that the co-accused Manik Bhattacharyya, Kuntal Ghosh and Santanu Banerjee were granted bail by the Court as well. The Petitioner, who had been in custody for nearly one and a half years, was implicated on the basis of statements of co-accused recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
A Single Bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh remarked, “Though the E.D. has stated that out of the entire period of detention of the petitioner, he was in judicial custody only for 266 days and remained in the hospital for the rest of the period, the hospitalisation of the petitioner during his incarceration is also deemed to be judicial custody.”
Senior Advocates Milon Mukherjee and Jishnu Saha represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Phiroze Edulji appeared for the Enforcement Directorate.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated proceedings against the Petitioner in connection with alleged money laundering activities linked to irregularities in the selection process for assistant teachers in primary schools. The Petitioner was not named in the predicate offence, an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2022, nor in the initial prosecution complaints filed by the ED. He was arraigned as an accused in the fourth supplementary prosecution complaint filed in July 2023.
The ED alleged that the Petitioner acted as a link in the laundering of proceeds of crime and raised funds through companies under his control.
The Petitioner argued that the case against him was based solely on statements of co-accused persons recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, which are not substantive evidence. He contended that the ED failed to establish a direct connection between him and the proceeds of crime.
The High Court reiterated that the prosecution cannot commence with the statement of a co-accused under Section 50 of the PMLA. “Coaccused cannot be considered against the petitioner and is not substantive piece of evidence. Its evidentiary value has to be tested at the time of trial and not at the stage of granting bail. The statement cannot be taken as gospel truth and only broad probabilities have to be seen,” it remarked.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in A. Tajudeen v. Union of India (2015), wherein it was held that the statement of the accused can under no circumstances constitute the sole basis for recording the finding of guilt against him. “The truth and veracity of the statements recorded under section 50 of the PMLA need to be weighed during trial,” the Bench clarified.
The Court also noted that the Petitioner was in custody for a considerable period of time and was last interrogated by the ED eleven months back. “Therefore it is evident that his further custodial interrogation is not required. The E.D. intends to rely upon voluminous evidence including 180 witnesses, and 438 documents. Charges are yet to be framed. Chance of conclusion of trial in near future is bleak. The delay in trial is not wholly attributable to the petitioner,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court held, “Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made on behalf of the parties as well as material on record, this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail subject to stringent conditions keeping in mind his right to speedy trial under section 21 of the Constitution as well as his prolonged incarceration without trial.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Bail Application.
Cause Title: Sujay Krishna Bhadra v. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Milon Mukherjee and Jishnu Saha; Advocates Anand Kesari, Soumen Mohanty, Ayan Poddar, Piyush Kumar Ray, Agnish Basu, Riddhi Jain and Vipul Vedant
Enforcement Directorate: Advocates Phiroze Edulji and Anamika Pandey
