The Calcutta High Court denied bail to Partha Chatterjee, the former West Bengal Education Minister, in a money laundering case linked to a school employment scandal.

Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, acting as the single judge, observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had seized moveable and immovable assets, including cash and jewellery, amounting to ₹54.88 crores from locations associated with Chatterjee.

"I have taken into account the materials available in the instant case, particularly, the seizures, which were effected both in respect of the movable and immoveable assets, the consistent version of the witnesses under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as well as the corroborating materials that establish the relationship between Partha Chatterjee and Aripta Mukherjee, which demonstrates trust, faith, and confidence from both sides, as the petitioner is the nominee in the bank account and insurance policies, and the immoveable properties that have been purchased through different companies were in the name of Arpita Mukherjee," the Court said.

Therefore, the statement provided by co-accused Arpita Mukherjee, highlighting the cash seizures and jewellery found in the two flats linked to Partha Chatterjee, does not, at this point, establish any circumstances in favor of the petitioner to meet the dual conditions outlined under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the single judge emphasized.

In addressing the argument regarding Chatterjee's 21-month detention, the court referenced the Supreme Court's observations in cases involving Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Manish Sisodia and Satyendra Kumar Jain.

The right to speedy trial and access to justice is a valuable right as enshrined in the Constitution of India and the provisions of section 436A of the CrPC both applies to cases under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 subject to the provisions and the explanations provided therein. The petitioner would definitely be entitled to the right under the relevant provisions when the conditions of the said provisions are satisfied," the judge opined.

With these observations, the Court dismissed the bail plea.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), opposing the bail plea, cited several orders from the Calcutta High Court indicating that the recruitment process for assistant primary teachers had been conducted unlawfully and for ulterior motives.

The anti-money laundering agency further argued that both Chatterjee and Mukherjee were implicated in the act of money laundering by engaging in a criminal conspiracy to unlawfully provide teaching positions in primary schools in exchange for bribes, thereby generating significant proceeds from crime.

The Court found merit in the submissions of the ED and therefore, rejected Chatterjee's bail plea.

Senior Advocate Sandipan Ganguly along with Advocates Ayan Poddar, Manaswita Mukherjee, Soham Dutt and Soumen Paul appeared for Partha Chatterjee.

Advocates Phiroze Edulji and Anamika Pandey represented the ED.

Case Title: Partha Chatterjee vs Enforcement Directorate