The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on the bail petition filed by former West Bengal Education Minister Partha Chatterjee in a money laundering case linked to the teacher recruitment scam in the state.
Taking in view Chatterjee’s medical ailments and his advanced age, the Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant directed the national agency and posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.
On April 30, the Calcutta High Court denied bail to the Trinamool Congress leader on the ground that a prima facie case was established against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Appearing for Chatterjee before the Apex Court, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi contended that the petitioner had already spent two years and two months in jail in a case where the maximum punishment for money laundering under Section 4 of PMLA was seven years.
ED had filed a case against Chatterjee in June 2022 soon after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) began investigation into the alleged teacher recruitment scam, wherein eligible and meritorious candidates were denied jobs as school teachers, while ineligible persons, including failed candidates, got appointed by paying huge bribes.
The role of AITC leaders and office bearers of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education also came under scanner during investigations into the illegal selection of assistant teachers.
Searches were conducted, which led to the recovery of Rs 49 crore cash and jewellery worth Rs 5 crore from two flats of one Arpita Mukherjee.
It was later known that Arpita was closely associated with Chatterjee and incriminating documents were recovered showing how the duo jointly operated bank accounts and dummy companies to conceal the proceeds of crime.
The federal agency further recovered digital devices from Chatterjee’s residence pointing to his illegal appointment of teachers.
While denying bail to Chatterjee, the High Court took into account the statement of witnesses that established the material against the accused and also linked him with Arpita Mukherjee.
Chatterjee initially chose to distance himself from the cash recovered from Arpita’s residence, however, ED showed the trust, faith and confidence in their dealings as Chatterjee was the nominee in the bank account and insurance policies belonging to Arpita.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh of the High Court held that the cash seizures and jewellery from the two flats did not at this stage create any circumstance in favour of the petitioner to overcome the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA.
The twin-condition test under Section 45 required the court to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty of an offence and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.