PARTHA CHATTERJEEversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

          [2024] 12 S.C.R. 627 : 2024 INSC 975

                     Partha Chatterjee
                             v.
                Directorate of Enforcement
              (Criminal Appeal No. 5266 of 2024)
                       13 December 2024
           [Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to grant of bail to the appellant-former State
Education Minister and MLA, in the ED case for his involvement
in various investigations, owing to the racket of illegal appointment
of teachers.

                            Headnotes†
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.45 and 50 –
Grant of bail – Teachers Recruitment Scam – FIR registered
by CBI under the PC Act, as well as IPC, against certain
functionaries of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education,
and one who was allegedly engaged in an unholy nexus with
varied authorities, so as to facilitate appointments of primary
school teachers in exchange for substantial sums of money –
On basis thereof, ED also registered the case against the said
persons – Thereafter, conduct of raid at the premises of the
appellant-former State Education Minister and MLA, leading
to incriminating documents relating to the appellant – Arrest
of appellant, for his involvement in various investigations,
owing to the racket of illegal appointment – Bail application –
Rejected by trial court and the High Court – Propriety:
Held: 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 – 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 – Instead, the claim of
the appellant to be examined on basis of pleas taken to highlight
his mitigating circumstances as well as the adverse impact it may
628                                                              [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       cause in the wake of allegations effecting the future of thousands
       of well merited aspirants, which underscores the broader societal
       harm caused by such actions and the erosion of trust in the
       integrity of public institutions – Statement of the appellant’s close
       associates constitutes prima facie evidence linking the appellant to
       substantial heaps of bribe money recovered from the associate’s
       residence and company premises – Appellant’s prayer for bail
       must also be juxtaposed against the apprehension of threat to life
       expressed by the said associate in her statement – However, the
       suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial
       incarceration should not amount to punitive detention – Striking a
       balance between these considerations, bail granted with certain
       conditions – Bail to be effective from or before 01.02.2025, subject
       to framing of charges by the trial court, examination of material
       witness, furnishing of bail bonds, and compliance with the other
       bail conditions – Said directions pertain only to the said ED Case –
       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [Paras 13-19]

       Bail – Grant of – Prolonged incarceration, effect:
       Held: Prolonged incarceration of an accused awaiting trial unjustly
       deprives them of their right to personal liberty – Even statutory
       embargoes on the grant of bail must yield when weighed against
       the paramount importance of the right to life and liberty u/Art. 21,
       particularly in cases where such incarceration extends over an
       unreasonably long period without conclusion of trial – Suspect
       cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration
       should not amount to punitive detention – Nevertheless, the court
       to 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. [Paras 13, 17]

       Bail – Grant of bail – General Principles:
       Held: Grant of bail to be determined based on the unique
       circumstances of each case, balanced against settled factors such
       as the gravity of the offence, the nature of the allegations, likelihood
       of interference with the ongoing investigation, the possibility of
       evidence tampering, threat or influence over the material witnesses,
       the societal impact of such release, and the risk of the accused
       absconding among others. [Para 14]
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                               629

             Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement


                                  List of Acts
     Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Prevention of Money Laundering
     Act, 2002; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

                              List of Keywords
     Bail; Former State Education Minister and MLA; Racket of illegal
     appointment of teachers; Functionaries of West Bengal Board
     of Primary Education; Appointments of primary school teachers;
     Arrest; Bail application; Grant of bail; Interference with the ongoing
     investigation; Evidence tampering; Threat or influence over material
     witnesses; Societal impact; Impartiality; Prerequisite to Rule of
     Law; Official positions; Judicial discretion; Mitigating circumstances;
     Societal harm; Integrity of public institutions; Bribe money; Undertrial
     incarceration; Punitive detention; Examination of material witness;
     Furnishing of bail bonds; Prolonged incarceration; Right to life and
     liberty u/Art.21; Doctrine of a fair trial.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     5266 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30-04-2024 of the High Court
     at Calcutta in CRM (SB) No. 180 of 2023

                          Appearances for Parties
     Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Nakul Mohta, Anirban
     Guhathakurta, Bharat Monga, Ayush Kashyap, Muthu Thangathurai,
     Advs. for the Appellant.
     Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., Zoheb Hossain, Annam Venkatesh,
     Vivek Gurnani, Animesh Upadhyay, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
     Ms. Bhawna Gandhi, Ms. Deepika Gahlot, Ms. Aakriti Mishra,
     Advs. for the Respondent.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     Order

     Leave granted.
2.   The Appellant has been a Member of the West Bengal Legislative
     Assembly since 2001, and was a member of the ruling party of the
630                                                           [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       State at the relevant time. He was inducted as a Minister in the West
       Bengal State cabinet between 2011 and 2022 and seems to have
       held the post of the State Education Minister since 2016. During his
       tenure as the State Education Minister, recruitments to various posts
       like: (i) Primary School Teachers; (ii) Assistant School Teachers;
       (iii) Group C staff; and (iv) Group D staff, took place from time to time.
3.     Writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Calcutta (High
       Court), questioning the legitimacy of the procedures followed in the
       aforementioned recruitments. Most pertinently, proceedings were
       initiated by unsuccessful candidates in the Teachers Eligibility Test
       (TET) conducted by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education,
       vide WPA No. 9979/2022, alleging corrupt practices in the recruitment
       process of Primary School Teachers. In the light of serious allegations
       having been made, the High Court on 08.06.2022 directed the Central
       Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a thorough investigation
       into the matter and also to register a case in this regard.
4.     Consequently, the CBI registered FIR RC0102022A0006 (Predicate
       FIR) on 09.06.2022, under Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention
       of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), as well as Sections 120B, 420,
       467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), against
       certain functionaries of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education,
       and one Ranjan@Chandan Mondal who was allegedly engaged in an
       unholy nexus with varied authorities, so as to facilitate appointments
       of primary school teachers in exchange for substantial sums of
       money. The said FIR was registered on the basis that the selection
       process of Assistant Teachers and Primary School Teachers had
       been conducted in a dubious manner, considering that the answer
       key for the TET was designed in a way that would deprive eligible
       candidates and, instead, facilitate back door entry to such ineligible
       candidates who submitted blank examination papers.
5.     The Predicate FIR dated 09.06.2022 registered by the CBI, led the
       Enforcement Directorate (ED) also to take cognizance and register
       ECIR No. KLZO-11/19/2022 on 24.06.2022, against the aforestated
       office bearers and Ranjan@Chandan Mondal, containing the same
       allegations as in the CBI Case. On this basis, a prima facie case for
       the offence of ‘money laundering’ under Section 4 of the Prevention
       of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) was stated to have been
       made out.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        631

            Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement


6.   The ED conducted a raid at the premises of the Appellant on
     22.07.2022 and recorded his statement under Section 17 of the
     PMLA. During the said search, incriminating documents pertaining
     to: (i) twelve immoveable properties in the name of the Appellant’s
     close associate; and (ii) documents showcasing the appointment of
     Group D staff such as admit cards of candidates, intimation letters
     for verification of testimonials and personality test, application forms
     etc. are claimed to have been recovered. The searches conducted
     at the residential premises of the Appellant’s close aide further led to
     the seizure of cash amounting to Rs. 21.90 crores and gold jewellery
     amounting to Rs. 76,97,100/-.
7.   Additionally, based on the interrogation of the alleged close associate
     and scrutiny of the documents already seized, further search was
     conducted, whereby cash amounting to Rs. 27.90 crores and
     gold amounting to Rs. 4.31 crores were seized from the premises
     connected to companies that de facto were stated to belong to
     the Appellant, where he had allegedly appointed dummy directors.
     A deeper probe further revealed that these companies had been
     used to acquire, possess, conceal, appropriate, project and claim
     large-scale proceeds of crime.
8.   In the wake of these allegations, the Appellant was arrested by the
     ED under Section 19 of the PMLA, on 23.07.2022. The Special
     Court (CBI) (Trial Court) on 25.07.2022 allowed the ED custody of
     the Appellant for a period of ten days, which was further extended
     till 05.08.2022 vide order dated 03.08.2022. The Trial Court on
     05.08.2022 remanded the Appellant to judicial custody, where he has
     remained since. The ED thereafter filed ML Case No. 13/2022 (ED
     Case) under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA before the Trial Court
     against the Appellant, his associate and various dummy companies
     that are claimed to have been set up by the Appellant.
9.   At this juncture, given that the Appellant is involved in various
     investigations, owing to the racket of illegal appointment of
     unmerited candidates to the posts of Primary School Teachers,
     Assistant Teachers for Class IX-X and Class XI-XII, Group C
     Posts and Group D Posts, it is useful to provide clarity and avoid
     any confusion regarding the current status of the different cases,
     through the following table:
632                                                         [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports



       Sl.   Investigating Case Details          Date of     Current Status
       No.     Authority                         Arrest
       1.        ED        ECIR/KLZO11/         23.07.2022   Appellant
                           19/2022 (Primary                  in judicial
                           Teachers                          custody since
                           Recruitment Scam)                 05.08.2022.
                                                             Complaint filed.
       2.        ED        ECIR/KLZO11/             -        Under
                           17/1022 (Group                    investigation.
                           C and D Posts
                           Recruitment Scam)
       3.        ED        ECIR/KLZO11/             -        Under
                           18/1022 (Assistant                investigation.
                           Teachers
                           Recruitment Scam,
                           Class IX-XII)
       4.        CBI       RC No. 6/2022 –      01.10.2024   Chargesheet and
                           Predicate offense                 supplementary
                           (Primary teachers                 chargesheet
                           recruitment scam)                 filed. Further
                                                             investigation
                                                             underway.
       5.        CBI       RC No. 2/2022            -        Charge sheeted
                           (Group D posts                    in the second
                           recruitment scam)                 prosecution
                                                             complaint.
       6.        CBI       RC No. 5/2022        16.09.2024   Charge sheeted
                           (Group C posts                    in the main
                           recruitment scam)                 prosecution
                                                             complaint.
       7.        CBI       RC No. 3/2022            -        Charge sheeted
                           (Class IX-X                       in the third
                           teachers                          prosecution
                           recruitment scam)                 complaint.
       8.        CBI       RC No. 4/2022            -        Charge sheeted
                           (Class XI-                        in the second
                           XII teachers                      prosecution
                           recruitment scam)                 complaint.

10. That being the state of affairs, the Appellant filed a bail application
    before the Trial Court in connection with the ED Case, which was
    rejected on 03.08.2023. The Appellant then sought bail before the
    High Court but the same came to be declined vide the impugned
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       633

            Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement


     judgement dated 30.04.2024. The grounds for such rejection were
     based on the statements made by witnesses under Section 50 of
     the PMLA as well as other corroborating material, owing to which
     the High Court held that the Appellant had failed to overcome the
     twin conditions postulated by Section 45 of the PMLA.
11. The aggrieved Appellant is thus before us seeking bail, inter alia, on
    the following grounds: (i) the prolonged period of incarceration of over
    two years; (ii) the Appellant was neither named nor chargesheeted
    in the predicate offence; (iii) the Appellant does not have any
    criminal antecedents and has deep roots in society; (iv) he is not
    a flight risk or likely to tamper with evidence or witnesses; (v) no
    cash was recovered from the Appellant during search and seizure
    by the respondent ED; (vi) the Appellant is 72 years of age and
    suffers from multiple health ailments; (vii) the Appellant has already
    spent one-third of the total sentence prescribed for the offence and
    thus, is entitled to bail under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
    Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS); and (viii) there is no hope in the
    trial commencing in view of the 442 documents and 183 witnesses
    cited for examination. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Learned Senior Counsel,
    lastly contended that the Appellant ought to be granted bail on the
    ground of parity, considering that his co-accused have already been
    released on bail.
12. Per contra, Shri S.V. Raju, Learned Additional Solicitor General
    of India, has opposed the prayer for bail, urging primarily that:
    (i) the provisions of the first proviso to Section 479 of the BNSS
    would not be applicable as the Appellant is not a first time offender;
    (ii) the Appellant would not be entitled to bail in view of
    Section 479(2) of BNSS, as multiple cases are registered against him;
    (iii) 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; (iv) the close acquaintance of the Appellant and from
    whose residence huge amount of valuables were recovered has in
    her statement under Section 50 of the PMLA expressed apprehension
    of threat to life at the hands of the Appellant; and (v) the seizure
    and attachment, in this case, stands at a hefty Rs. 151.2 crores,
    which are the proceeds of crime generated out of criminal activities
    related to scheduled offences under the PMLA.
634                                                         [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


13. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully examined
    the material on record. At the outset, it is worth reiterating that this
    Court, through a catena of decisions, has consistently emphasized
    that prolonged incarceration of an accused awaiting trial unjustly
    deprives them of their right to personal liberty. Even statutory
    embargoes on the grant of bail must yield when weighed against the
    paramount importance of the right to life and liberty under Article 21
    of the Constitution, particularly in cases where such incarceration
    extends over an unreasonably long period without conclusion of trial.
14. Equally well-established is the principle that the grant of bail must
    be determined based on the unique circumstances of each case,
    balanced against settled factors such as the gravity of the offence,
    the nature of the allegations, likelihood of interference with the
    ongoing investigation, the possibility of evidence tampering, threat
    or influence over the material witnesses, the societal impact of such
    release, and the risk of the accused absconding among others.
15. In this context, the argument that the Appellant’s position as a Minister
    entitles him to any special consideration does not hold merit from
    either perspective. 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.
16. Instead, the claim of the Appellant must be examined through the lens
    of various pleas he has taken to highlight his mitigating circumstances
    as well as the adverse impact it may cause in the wake of allegations
    of playing with the future of thousands of well-merited aspirants and
    the undue benefits accrued to undeserving persons at the cost of
    these unsuccessful candidates. This later perspective underscores
    the broader societal harm caused by such actions and the erosion of
    trust in the integrity of public institutions. In this light, the statement
    of the Appellant’s close associate(s) recorded under Section 50 of
    the PMLA assumes enormous significance, as it constitutes prima
    facie evidence linking the Appellant to substantial heaps of bribe
    money recovered from the associate’s residence and company
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                        635

            Partha Chatterjee v. Directorate of Enforcement


     premises. Additionally, the Appellant’s prayer for bail must also be
     juxtaposed against the apprehension of threat to life expressed by
     the said associate in her statement. Having said so, we may clarify
     that the question of the evidentiary value of the statement recorded
     under Section 50 of the PMLA has not been addressed at this stage
     so that no prejudice is caused to parties.
17. We, however, cannot be oblivious to the settled principles that a suspect
    cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that 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 evidence, or influence witnesses, namely,
    actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial.
18. Striking a balance between these considerations and without
    expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, we deem it
    appropriate to dispose of this appeal with the following directions:
     a.   Since the charge sheet in the ED Case (ECIR No.
          KLZO- 11/19/2022) 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 the winter vacations
          and/or before 31.12.2024, whichever is earlier;
     b.   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;
     c.   The Appellant and his counsel are directed to extend full
          cooperation to the Trial Court for the recording of statements
          of these witnesses;
     d.   The witnesses will 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 such challenge, no stay on trial shall be granted;
     e.   In the event the examination of these witnesses is not completed
          on the dates fixed due to unforeseen circumstances, the Trial
          Court may do so lastly in the third and fourth week of January,
          2025;
636                                                             [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


       f.      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;
       g.      In the event that the Trial Court is able to complete the directions
               put forth in (b) and (e) at an earlier date, then the Appellant
               may be released on bail immediately thereafter and prior to the
               given date of 01.02.2025;
       h.      Any attempt made by the Appellant to influence or threaten
               the witnesses, directly or indirectly, shall entail cancellation of
               the relief of bail;
       i.      The Appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on every date
               of hearing, and no unnecessary adjournment shall be sought
               on his behalf. If the Appellant is found involved in prolonging
               the trial, it shall be taken as a valid ground for cancellation of
               bail; and
       j.      The Appellant shall not be appointed to any public office (except
               that he shall continue to be a Member of the West Bengal
               Legislative Assembly) during the pendency of trial.
19. We find it necessary to clarify that these directions pertain
    only to the ED Case pending against the Appellant (ECIR No.
    KLZO-11/19/2022). We have not expressed any opinion on the merits
    of any of the other pending investigations, including the recent arrest
    of the Appellant in one of the cases by the CBI.
20. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain