The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to grant anticipatory bail to Sumit Roy, personal assistant to TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, in a West Bengal land-related case. The matter was heard by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
Sumit Roy had approached the Supreme Court challenging the denial of anticipatory bail, while the West Bengal government had opposed his plea and sought his custodial interrogation. The State has alleged that Roy was connected to transactions involving government land and had pointed to substantial cash deposits made around the period of the alleged transactions.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sakarnarayanan for Sumit Roy, argued thatdespite 88 hours of questioning, Sumit Roy had not been confronted with material directly linking him to the alleged cash deposits or land transactions. He argued that
● Sumit Roy was never confronted with cash deposits in his own, family members’ or associates’ accounts, even after 88 hours of questioning.
● No deposit slips, banking records or documents bearing Roy’s signature/handwriting were shown to him.
● Roy was never confronted with any complainant or victim alleging that they had paid money to him.
● He was not confronted with any alleged forgery, receipt or corresponding cash deposit establishing a money trail.
● Roy was confronted only with deposits in the AITC account, not his personal or relatives’/associates’ accounts; counsel said these included membership-fee deposits.
Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan further argued that the amounts being referred to were deposits in the All India Trinamool Congress account, including membership fees, and had nothing to do with Roy’s personal account. He submitted that the party’s accounts were audited and returns were furnished to the Election Commission, with the defence placing a chart showing similar deposits by other political parties. He said the investigation was proceeding on the mistaken assumption that the amounts had been deposited by him personally, whereas his personal account was opened only in 2019 and “the largest deposit ever made by me was 60,000 rupees.” He added that the entire balance sheet and bank statements had already been furnished to the investigators and maintained that after 88 hours of questioning, nothing had emerged to connect him with the alleged cash deposits.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the contention that the cash deposits had nothing to do with him, pointing out that while the deposits may not have been made in his personal account, the prosecution was relying on contemporaneous deposits in a political party’s account and statements alleging that money from illegal land transactions was handed over to Roy. The Bench noted that the Election Commission disclosures identify the recipient political party but do not necessarily establish the source from which the party received the funds. Justice Bagchi remarked:
“
“You have not deposited large volumes of cash in your personal account. But there was contemporaneous deposit in a political party’s account. Your statement is that a political party’s account has multiple sources of deposit which may include membership deposits or otherwise is disclosed in the Election Commission. When the disclosures are made to the Election Commission of India, it only shows the identity of the recipient, namely the political party. It does not sanction the source from which the political party procures the amount, which is a part of the receipts.”
Opposing custodial interrogation, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that Roy was not named in the FIR and that the principal accused and his driver had not implicated him in the alleged transactions. He also pointed to Roy’s repeated cooperation with the investigation, saying he had appeared for questioning on multiple days.
“
“Courts are not meant to be besieged by people for political enmity being dragged in for one reason or another. I am admittedly the personal assistant to one of the important leaders of the opposing party. That can’t be the reason why on 5th May, as a trigger, you start registering left, right and centre FIRs.”
Sankaranarayanan further questioned the need for custodial interrogation after 88 hours of questioning, asking what additional purpose custody would serve. The CJI, however, clarified that the issue before the Court was not whether further interrogation would be fruitful, but whether the Court should “cause any impediment” to the investigation in light of the material and circumstances before it.
The Court also put to counsel that the alleged money could have been intended for an entity other than Roy personally, including a political party. Counsel responded that, in that event, the allegations against Roy would still have to establish the ingredients of the offences invoked against him, including entrustment and forgery. It was argued that he was being used as an “instrument” to obtain information about persons in the political party and pointed out that he was not named in the FIR. He also submitted that statements of the principal accused and his driver did not implicate him in receiving the alleged money.
The Supreme Court, however, declined anticipatory bail.