Person’s Official Status Neither A Ground For Denying Bail, Not Can It Constitute Special Consideration For Granting Bail: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has clarified that while an accused person’s official status should not be grounds for denying bail, it also cannot constitute a special consideration to grant bail.
The Court stated that Partha Chatterjee (Appellant), a member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly since 2001 must be released on bail on February 1st, 2025 in the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) case concerning money laundering linked to the State’s recruitment scam. The Bench directed the Trial Court to decide on framing of charges before the commencement of the winter vacations and/or before December 31st, 2024.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Impartiality is a prerequisite to the Rule of Law, wherein decisions are based on the factual matrix of the case as opposed to the individual’s position or influence. In this vein, this Court has emphatically clarified that while an accused person’s official status should not be grounds for denying bail, it also cannot constitute a special consideration to grant bail if otherwise no case is made out to provide such relief. Official positions, regardless of their stature, lose their relevance for the purpose of exercising judicial discretion judiciously.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented the Appellant, while ASG Suryaprakash V. Raju appeared for the Respondent.
The Appellant was arrested in 2022, in connection with the recruitment scam involving the appointment of primary school teachers, assistant teachers, and Group C and D staff in West Bengal. Investigations revealed that appointments were facilitated through corrupt practices, including “substantial heaps of bribe money” and manipulation of answer keys.
The ED conducted searches at various premises and recovered cash worth Rs. 49.80 crore and gold valued at Rs. 5.08 crore, allegedly linked to the Appellant. These proceeds of crime were traced to dummy companies operated by his associates.
The Appellant was arrested by the ED under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 PMLA. The Trial Court placed the Appellant in judicial custody from August 2022, and his bail applications were subsequently rejected by both the Trial Court and the Calcutta High Court.
Opposing the Appellant’s prayer for bail, the State submitted that the Appellant being in a high ranking position of a Minister and having indulged in an offence involving moral turpitude cannot seek parity with other co-accused who are much lower in rank and status than him.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that “the argument that the Appellant’s position as a Minister entitles him to any special consideration does not hold merit from either perspective.” It stated, “Official positions, regardless of their stature, lose their relevance for the purpose of exercising judicial discretion judiciously.”
The Court stated that it would “ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial.”
The Bench noted that the Appellant had been in custody for over two years, and despite charges being filed, the trial had not commenced. The Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration without trial unjustly deprives the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Consequently, the Court directed, “The Trial Court shall thereafter fix a date within the second and third week of January 2025 for recording the statements of such prosecution witnesses who are the most material or vulnerable. All such witnesses, especially those who have expressed apprehension of danger to their lives (who might be two or three), will be examined on these dates…The Petitioner shall thereafter be released on bail on 01.02.2025, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court”
Cause Title: Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 975)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi; AOR Misha Rohatgi; Advocates Nakul Mohta, Anirban Guhathakurta, Bharat Monga, Ayush Kashyap and Muthu Thangathurai
Respondent: ASG Suryaprakash V. Raju; Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Annam Venkatesh, Vivek Gurnani, Animesh Upadhyay, Bhawna Gandhi, Deepika Gahlot and Aakriti Mishra; AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma
