Supreme Court Stays Arrest Of Abhishek Banerjee's PA Sumit Roy In Land Fraud Case

The Supreme Court has stayed the arrest of Sumit Roy, personal assistant of TMC Leader Abhishek Banerjee, in connection with a corruption case.

Roy filed a Special Leave Petition assailing the order passed by the Calcutta High Court dismissing his anticipatory bail application in connection with Salboni Police Station Case No. 133 of 2026 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 406, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "Issue Notice. The petitioner directed to join and fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The petitioner shall not be accompanied by any relative or political (person)...The petitioner shall remain available for investigation from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM with the usual breaks. However, his arrest shall remain stayed, subject to furnishing bail bond to the satisfaction of the investigating officer."

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan appeared for Roy, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of West Bengal

The prime contention of the de facto complainant was that he was duped of a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on the promise of providing a piece of land. Thereafter, he came to know that this was a conspiracy organized by certain individuals including a co-accused namely, Sujoy Hazra. However, in the FIR, the present petitioner has not been named. But, the police are now looking for the present petitioner at different places in connection with the present case.

Chief Justice Kant said, "Let him join the investigation."

To which Solicitor General Mehta said, "Kindly allow me to address as this will have to be argued."

CJI Kant replied, "You can point out in a week or so whether he is cooperative or not."

Sankaranarayan submitted, "One small submission for Mr. Mehta's consideration also, which is that the same day I have been given anticipatory bail in another matter. All these FIRs were registered after the election declaration...I have to join investigation within 10 days, so from 3rd August, within 10 days. So, I have to join for that anyway...With whatever condition—I am trying to persuade Your Lordships. Whatever condition Your Lordships want to impose, any condition."

SG Mehta replied, "After committing an offence, everyone says that whatever condition."

To which Sankaranarayan said, "I'm surprised Solicitor General coming for one small PA who is asking for anticipatory bail and then opposing it on day one. It's such a mild issue."

Mehta then said, "Allow me to say something. I'll place it on affidavit, on instructions. Once we went to arrest him, and the honorable earlier Chief Minister intervened again. She always intervenes whenever a law enforcement agency—Therefore, your lordships may not... Somebody should try to exercise the jurisdiction."

Justice Bagchi said, "Solicitor, correct, but the political climate has changed."

Mehta replied, "That is what is a matter of serious concern! Absolutely! And another thing. Another thing, the serious thing which is happening is, whenever any person who is accused of a serious crime, the law enforcement agency, either of center or state, goes the—the leader, earlier the then Chief Minister, now former Chief Minister, come and interrupts and obstructs the law enforcement agencies, that, as the highest court of the country, Your Lordships will have to examine."

Solicitor General also submitted that the investigation authorities need a custodial investigation in the matter.

The Calcutta High Court took into account the statements which were appearing in the case diary including that of the security officers belonging to the Government department/police officers who were present at the relevant point of time when the complainant along with the other accused had been to his office and was threatened. It said that the statement of the accused in custody presently also reveals the name of the present petitioner.

The High Court observed, "Although such a statement is not admissible in evidence, but at the stage of investigation, the same requires a lead for the investigating agency to verify the same. Having considered the nature of the offence where Government lands were transferred with the aid of some officials of the land department as well as number of forged deeds having been seized in connection with the instant case from the house of the one of the accused as well as the fact that there were threats from the present petitioner when the issue came up for return of the money, which were witnessed by the security officers (who are police officers deployed at the relevant point of time), I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected."

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has now granted interim relief to Roy.

Cause Title: Sumit Roy v. State of West Bengal [Diary No. 46817/2026]