The West Bengal Government on Wednesday strongly pressed for custodial interrogation of Sumit Roy, personal assistant to TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, in the alleged Salboni land-grabbing case, telling the Supreme Court that the investigation had uncovered cash deposits of around ₹15 crore and that the explanation offered for the money required further investigation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, submitted that Roy was confronted during interrogation with material relating to the cash deposits. He submitted that Sumit Roy had initially been evasive about whether the person referred to in the investigation as “Sumit Roy” was in fact him, but subsequent banking material, including PAN details, linked the deposits to Roy.
The State also relied on statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and material concerning alleged transactions involving land brokers. According to the prosecution, public land was allegedly mutated into government/private names pursuant to directions connected with the accused and subsequently sold. The State said the financial trail and statements had uncovered more than what was presently visible.
On the cash deposits, Mr Mehta specifically responded to the defence contention that the money represented membership fees and donations. He said the State wanted to ascertain whether that explanation accounted for the actual amounts deposited.
“
“It is our apprehension, and we would like to interrogate him on whether this is the amount received as membership fees and donations, or whether you got ₹5 crores and deposited ₹75 crores. The total amount deposited comes to some ₹15 crores or so in total. This appears to be the tip of an iceberg, and I think we are entitled to custodial interrogation.”
The State also pointed to a ₹71 lakh deposit made on June 17, 2021, around the period of the alleged land transactions. He argued that the cash deposits, the alleged land transactions and statements of persons connected with those transactions collectively raised an apprehension that the deposits represented only part of the financial trail. He therefore urged the Court to permit custodial interrogation, arguing that the investigators needed to confront Roy with the material and establish the source and destination of the money.
Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan, appearing for Roy, challenged the State’s reliance on the “tip of the iceberg” formulation, particularly since a charge sheet had already been filed.
He also objected to the manner in which the interrogation material had been placed before the Court, arguing that the defence should have access to material being relied upon against Roy.
“
“We don’t have the advantage of whatever is in a sealed cover. We don’t have the advantage of the charge sheet because the charge sheet is usually the iceberg; the tip will come after it. Now, my friend says this is the tip of the iceberg after the charge sheet has already been filed, which is very strange to me. As far as the cash deposits are concerned, that’s why we filed the note. We are not putting anything in sealed covers. Your Lordships need to have it. He also needs to have it.”
He submitted that the cash deposits being relied upon by the State had been explained as membership fees, donations and other party-related collections. Counsel argued that the material concerning the deposits had been placed openly before the Court and could be supplied to the State. Mr Shankaranarayanan also countered the State’s suggestion that Sumit Roy had not cooperated with the investigation, submitting that the videographed interrogation shows what questions were actually put to Roy.
The defence distanced Roy from the alleged land transactions, pointing to another accused, Hazra, who is in custody, and arguing that the statements relied upon by the State primarily concerned him. Counsel also said Roy was being targeted because of his position as a personal assistant and disputed linking the cash deposits to the alleged land-grabbing. He submitted that making deposits and submitting challans could form part of Roy’s work.
Responding to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s submission that a person working as a personal assistant had deposited crores of rupees in his own name, Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan appearing for Sumit Roy said the deposits were related to the political party and were part of Roy’s work.
“
“That is in the account of the party. It is my job to do it. I have given the challans. I have submitted all the challans. These are membership fees which I have submitted. I don’t know what my friend is referring to. I will take a look at it. Just give me tomorrow.”
The Supreme Court thereafter listed the matter for further hearing tomorrow, September 10.