The Supreme Court today laid down February 1, 2025 as the date for the release of former West Bengal Minister Partha Chatterjee in an alleged cash-for-jobs scam case registered by the Enforcement Directorate, while directing the Trial Court to decide on framing of charges and recording of statements of vulnerable witnesses by that time.

The Court was hearing Chatterjee's Special Leave Petition (SLP) 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. Chatterjee, who was the Education Minister when the alleged scam took place, has been in custody for around than two years and four months.

Pronouncing the Judgment, two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, "A suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention. The Court would nevertheless ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses, namely, axes that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial."

"Striking a balance between these two considerations and without expressing any opinion on merits of the allegations," the Court disposed of his petition with the following directions:

1. Chargesheet in the ED case has already been filed but charges are yet to be framed. We direct the Trial Court to decide on framing of charges before the commencement of winter vacations or before December 31, 2024, whichever is earlier. "Both sides will have to cooperate," Justice Surya Kant said orally.

2. The Trial Court shall thereafter fix a date between the second and third week of January 2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses who are the most vulnerable. All such witnesses, especially those who have an apprehension of danger to their life, who might be two or three, might be examined on this basis. The appellant and his counsel as well as prosecution shall extend full cooperation to the Trial Court in this regard.

3. The witnesses shall be examined without prejudice to the appellant's right to challenge the decision on framing of charges if the decision is adverse, and if he is so aggrieved. However, upon challenge, no stay on trial shall be granted.

4. In the event the examination of these witnesses is not completed on the date fixed due to unforeseen circumstances, the Trial Court must do so lastly in the third and fourth week of January 2025.

5. The Petitioner shall thereafter be released on bail on February 1, 2025 subject to him producing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Court clarified that if the Trial Court is able to complete the directions on framing of charges and recording of vulnerable witnesses before the timeline fixed by the Supreme Court, "then the appellant will be released on bail immediately thereafter".

Setting down a condition for release, the Court said, once released in the present ED case, Chatterjee "shall not be appointed to any public office, except that he shall continue to be Member of the Legislative Assembly till the pendency of the trial."

As a clarification, the Court stated, "We clarify that these directions only pertain to the ED case pending agains the appellant. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of any other pending investigation including the recent arrest of the appellant in one of the cases by the Central Bureau of Investigation."

During the course of hearing Chatterjee's SLP on November 27, the Bench had remarked that it would have understood the Enforcement Directorate's opposition if it had a higher conviction rate. Justice Bhuyan had 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.

In the hearing on December 4, 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. 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."

The Court said that it does not wish to give the message that it grants bail to "corrupt people", even as it conceded that Chatterjee cannot be kept in custody "endlessly". Justice Kant told ASG Raju, "We can't keep him endlessly (in custody)... After all, we have to balance the rights."

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

Justice Surya KantJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Tushar Kohli