PARTHA CHATTERJEE versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 627, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
[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. 
No.
Investigating 
Authority
Case Details
Date of 
Arrest
Current Status
1.
ED
ECIR/KLZO11/ 
19/2022 (Primary 
Teachers 
Recruitment Scam)
23.07.2022
Appellant 
in judicial 
custody since 
05.08.2022. 
Complaint filed.
2.
ED
ECIR/KLZO11/ 
17/1022 (Group 
C and D Posts 
Recruitment Scam)
-
Under 
investigation.
3.
ED
ECIR/KLZO11/ 
18/1022 (Assistant 
Teachers 
Recruitment Scam, 
Class IX-XII)
-
Under 
investigation.
4.
CBI
RC No. 6/2022 – 
Predicate offense 
(Primary teachers 
recruitment scam)
01.10.2024
Chargesheet and 
supplementary 
chargesheet 
filed. Further 
investigation 
underway.
5.
CBI
RC No. 2/2022 
(Group D posts 
recruitment scam)
-
Charge sheeted 
in the second 
prosecution 
complaint.
6.
CBI
RC No. 5/2022 
(Group C posts 
recruitment scam)
16.09.2024
Charge sheeted 
in the main 
prosecution 
complaint. 
7.
CBI
RC No. 3/2022 
(Class IX-X 
teachers 
recruitment scam)
-
Charge sheeted 
in the third 
prosecution 
complaint.
8.
CBI
RC No. 4/2022 
(Class XI-
XII teachers 
recruitment scam)
-
Charge sheeted 
in the second 
prosecution 
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