West Bengal Teacher Recruitment Scam Case: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Former Education Minister Partha Chatterjee
The High Court held that the accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely when the investigation is substantially documentary in nature and further custodial interrogation is not required.
The Calcutta High Court has allowed the bail plea of the former Education Minister of West Bengal, Partha Chatterjee, who was arrested by the CBI in connection with the alleged recruitment scam.
The High Court was hearing a petition filed by the former Minister, who was named in a supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI for alleged involvement in the illegal appointment of primary school teachers.
A Bench comprising Justice Suvra Ghosh, while granting bail, noted: “In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and striking a balance between the factors determining grant of bail and liberty of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not justified and he may be released on bail subject to stringent conditions.”
Advocate Milon Mukherjee appeared for the petitioner. DGSI Dhiraj Trivedi represented the CBI.
Background
The matter arose out of allegations that officials of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education had manipulated the recruitment process, granting appointments to ineligible candidates in exchange for extraneous considerations.
A list of over 700 candidates was allegedly generated and, at the behest of senior officials, names were added to it despite no interviews or aptitude tests being conducted. The petitioner, who was Education Minister at the relevant time, was alleged to have conspired with the Board’s President.
While the Minister was not initially named in the FIR or the first two charge sheets, subsequent investigation led to his arrest. Parallel proceedings were also initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by the Enforcement Directorate.
The former minister was granted bail in the ED case by the Supreme Court in December 2024, but continued to remain in custody in the CBI case.
Court’s Observations
The Calcutta High Court, at the outset, reiterated the settled principles governing the grant of bail, such as the nature and gravity of the offence, the material collected in support of accusations, the requirement of detention for investigation, flight risk, possibility of tampering with witnesses, and the likelihood of commission of similar offences.
On the documentary nature of the case, the Court observed that most evidence had already been seized and was in the custody of the CBI or the Court. The Bench noted that the petitioner had been interrogated only once since his arrest, and many witnesses and documents were common with the ED case. Accordingly, the Bench held that “ it can be inferred that the investigating agency does not require further custodial interrogation of the petitioner, and that, "Evidence of the present case is already in possession of the investigating agency.”
While addressing the apprehension of influence or intimidation of witnesses, the Court noted that the petitioner had already demitted office as Education Minister and was a septuagenarian suffering from ailments. “There is remote chance of the petitioner influencing or intimating witnesses or interfering with investigation at this stage, more so as investigation has been continuing for more than a year,” the Bench held.
The Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s dictum in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, which treated economic offences as grave offences with wider societal impact, but balanced it against the principle that under-trial incarceration should not become punitive.
Conclusion
Balancing these considerations, the Calcutta High Court allowed the petitioner’s bail on certain conditions, including furnishing a bond of ₹10 lakh with sureties, surrendering his passport, not leaving the jurisdiction without permission, appearing before the Trial Court on each hearing, cooperating with the investigation, and refraining from any contact with witnesses.
“Further detention of the petitioner is not justified and he may be released on bail subject to stringent conditions,” the Court ordered, clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not influence the trial on merits.
Cause Title: Partha Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Appearances
Petitioner: Adcoates Milon Mukherjee, Apalak Basu, Nazir Ahmed, Sanghamitra Mridha, Subham Kanjilal, Yavik Singhal, Sarnali Gupta
Respondent: Dhiraj Trivedi, DSGI, with Advocates Amajit De and Arijit Majumdar