Synopsis: Supreme Court orders the release of Partha Chatterjee on bail by February 1, 2025, in the cash-for-jobs scam. Trial court directed to frame charges by December 31, 2024, before the winter session. Chatterjee had been in custody for over two years, while other co-accused have been granted bail. ED opposed bail, citing risks of witness tampering and evidence manipulation. Court raised concerns about prolonged custody and flagged the poor conviction rate under PMLA.
Key Directives from the Supreme Court:
The apex court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, instructed the trial court to frame charges against Chatterjee by December 31, 2024, or before the start of the winter session. This order follows nearly a week after the court reserved its judgment, having heard arguments from senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Chatterjee, and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Arguments Presented:
- Defense Counsel: Mukul Rohatgi argued that Chatterjee has been in custody for over two years with no foreseeable conclusion to the trial. He highlighted that other co-accused in the case have already been granted bail.
- Prosecution's Stand: The ED, represented by SV Raju, opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the gravity of corruption charges and expressing concerns that Chatterjee might influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if released.
Supreme Court Observations:
Justice Surya Kant questioned the necessity of prolonged custody, especially given the poor conviction rate in cases filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court also queried the ED about the implications of Chatterjee’s potential acquittal and expressed skepticism over the agency’s handling of the case.
Background of the Case:
The money laundering case against Chatterjee surfaced after the ED recovered substantial quantities of cash and gold from the residences of his close aide, Arpita Mukherjee, in July 2022. Mukherjee alleged that Chatterjee had stored the wealth at her properties. Chatterjee has consistently denied any involvement, claiming no connection to the recovered assets.
After multiple bail rejections in the lower courts and the Calcutta High Court, Chatterjee approached the Supreme Court. The Calcutta High Court had earlier dismissed his plea, citing sufficient grounds for continued custody.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on balancing prolonged custody with due process. While the Enforcement Directorate has raised serious allegations, the court has sought to ensure fair proceedings without unwarranted delays. This ruling serves as a reminder of the need for prompt trials and efficient legal processes in high-profile corruption cases.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal or financial advice. Readers are encouraged to consult with qualified professionals for specific guidance related to the case or other legal matters.
