Calcutta High Court grants bail to Sujay Krishna Bhadra in the TET recruitment scam, stating that being hospitalized while in jail is still considered judicial custody.
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to Sujay Krishna Bhadra, who faced accusations in the TET recruitment scam. The court noted that his time in the hospital during his detention counts as judicial custody. The bail was approved after recognizing that co-accused individuals, including Manik Bhattacharyya, Kuntal Ghosh, and Santanu Banerjee, had also received bail. Bhadra had been in custody for about one and a half years, based on statements from co-accused recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. Justice Suvra Ghosh stated, “The E.D. mentioned that the petitioner was in judicial custody for only 266 days, with the rest spent in the hospital, but this hospital time is also considered judicial custody.”
Senior Advocates Milon Mukherjee and Jishnu Saha represented Bhadra, while Advocate Phiroze Edulji represented the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED began investigations into Bhadra for alleged money laundering related to irregularities in the hiring process for primary school teachers. Bhadra was not named in the original FIR by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2022 or in the initial complaints from the ED. He was later included as an accused in a supplementary complaint filed in July 2023. The ED claimed that Bhadra was involved in laundering crime proceeds and raised funds through companies he controlled.
The Petitioner claimed that the case against him relied only on statements from co-accused individuals recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, which do not count as solid evidence. He argued that the ED did not prove a direct link between him and the crime proceeds. The High Court emphasized that prosecution cannot start based solely on a co-accused’s statement under Section 50 of the PMLA. It stated, “Co-accused statements cannot be used against the petitioner and are not solid evidence. Their value must be assessed during the trial, not when deciding on bail. These statements cannot be taken as absolute truth; only general probabilities should be considered.”
The Bench referenced the Supreme Court ruling in A. Tajudeen v. Union of India (2015), which stated that an accused’s statement cannot be the only basis for finding guilt. The Bench clarified, “The truth of statements made under Section 50 of the PMLA must be evaluated during the trial.” The Court also pointed out that the Petitioner had been in custody for a long time and was last questioned by the ED eleven months ago. “Thus, it is clear that further custody is unnecessary. The ED plans to present a large amount of evidence, including 180 witnesses and 438 documents. Charges have not yet been filed, and the likelihood of a quick trial conclusion is low. The delay in the trial is not entirely the petitioner’s fault,” the Court noted.
The Court decided, “After reviewing the facts and details of the case, the arguments from both sides, and the evidence presented, this Court is willing to grant bail to the petitioner with strict conditions. This decision considers his right to a speedy trial under section 21 of the Constitution and his long time in jail without a trial.” Therefore, the High Court approved the Bail Application.
Cause Title: Sujay Krishna Bhadra v. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II
Appearances:
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
