The Supreme Court on Monday heard the anticipatory bail plea of Sumit Roy, personal assistant to TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee, in connection with the alleged West Bengal government land scam.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard submissions from Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for Roy and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State.
During the hearing, it was clarified that an additional affidavit had been filed on behalf of Sumit Roy, while the State had already placed certain documents before the Court in a sealed cover on the previous date of hearing.
The State sought custodial interrogation of Roy, referring to material collected during the investigation and alleging that the financial transactions under investigation could be only “the tip of the iceberg.”
Sr Adv Gopal Shankarnarayan submitted that his client had been cooperating with the investigation and had appeared for questioning for several days. He argued that despite being questioned for nearly 11 days, Sumit Roy had allegedly not been asked questions directly concerning the principal offence attributed to him. He further submitted that the entire interrogation had been videographed and that the video recordings would demonstrate the nature of the questioning.
Also Read Supreme Court Stays Arrest of Abhishek Banerjee’s Aide Sumit Roy, Directs Him to Join Investigation
SG Tushar Mehta appearing for State referred to alleged financial transactions and documents said to bear Sumit Roy’s signature, while Sr Adv Gopal Shankarnarayan disputed the existence of any document bearing his signature and maintained that the allegations against him related to a single transaction of approximately Rs 10 lakh.
The Bench also questioned the State on the necessity of custodial interrogation at the anticipatory bail stage, particularly in light of the documentary material and the availability of videographed interrogation. The Court directed that the relevant audio-video recordings of the interrogation be placed before it, with the State indicating that it would file the material.
During the hearing, the Bench also raised concerns regarding the broader investigation into the alleged land transactions and the manner in which different investigating agencies had proceeded in overlapping investigations. The Court, however, made it clear that it was not making any observations on the conduct of other agencies at this stage.
The interim protection from arrest continues, with the matter to be taken up subsequently after the relevant material is placed before the Court.