SC rejects bail plea of Abhishek Banerjee’s PA

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee’s personal assistant Sumit Roy in the Salboni land scam case where West Bengal government land was allegedly sold and the sale proceeds were deposited in the party’s account. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also vacated its earlier order of August 6, by which it had stayed Roy’s arrest.

Consequently, Roy can now be arrested for custodial interrogation in the case. The bench heard the submissions of senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Roy, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, before declining relief to the accused.

During the hearing, Sankaranarayanan said Roy has not been named as an accused in the FIR and strongly opposed the prosecution’s plea for his custodial interrogation. The bench examined a report submitted by the state police regarding the interrogation of Roy.  The Solicitor General had furnished a note concerning the interrogation, which was also shared with the petitioner’s counsel.

He said Roy had been evasive during questioning and referred to substantial cash deposits made contemporaneously with the alleged transactions.

“At first blush”, the material placed before the bench could appear serious, Sankaranarayanan said, but questioned the manner and sequence in which Roy had been interrogated.  He said Roy had been questioned for approximately 88 hours but had not been confronted with material which directly established his involvement in the alleged land transactions.

“There is nothing in these 88 hours of questioning which has distilled down to these half a dozen pages of questions,” the senior lawyer said. He said Roy had not been shown deposit slips, contemporaneous banking records bearing his signature or handwriting, or other material identifying him as the person who allegedly made the deposits.  Sankaranarayanan also submitted that Roy had not been confronted with any complainant or alleged victim claiming that money had been paid to him.

“The allegation apparently is that government land was being sold to private persons. Those purchasers would be the affected persons,” he added. He further said Roy had not been confronted with any material establishing a link between alleged forged documents, payments received from victims and the cash deposits relied upon by the investigating agency.

A substantial part of the arguments centred on cash deposits allegedly made in the account of All India Trinamool Congress (AITC).

Sankaranarayanan said that Roy was being questioned about transactions in the political party’s account even though the criminal case was not against the party.

“The petitioner was confronted only with deposits in the AITC account, not deposits in his personal account or in the account of any relative or associate,” he said.

He said TMC’s accounts are audited and disclosures are made to the Election Commission and approximately Rs 42.17 crore had been deposited in the party account during the relevant period.

“If they believe there is anything wrong with those deposits, they have to question the party. These questions have nothing to do with me,” he said.

He said Roy’s personal bank account was opened only in 2019 and that the largest deposit he had personally made was Rs 60,000.

Justice Bagchi, however, questioned the submission that Roy had no connection with the cash deposits, pointing to contemporaneous deposits in the account of a political party.

Justice Bagchi said that the bank statements indicated cash deposits associated with a PAN number linked to Roy.

He indicated that if the deposits were found to form part of the proceeds of an alleged crime, they could become relevant to the investigation.

At one stage, Justice Bagchi said that the bench was giving Roy the “longest rope”, by protecting him from arrest, to explain the circumstances emerging from the probe. 

Roy’s lawyer, however, said the investigation had turned into a “fishing and roving inquiry” into the political party.

Sankaranarayanan described Roy as a “small minion in the system” and said he had cooperated with the investigation “to the hilt”.

The Solicitor General strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, maintaining that the investigating agency required an opportunity to interrogate Roy in custody.

“We can ask haphazard questions,” he said while responding to the defence’s objections regarding the sequence of interrogation.

The case relates to allegations of illegal transfer and sale of government land in the Salboni area.

The prosecution has alleged that government land was transferred to private individuals through forged title documents and with the alleged involvement or complicity of local political and influential persons.

It has further alleged that proceeds connected with the transactions were subsequently deposited in accounts linked to the then ruling party.

The case was registered under provisions relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged documents and criminal conspiracy.