The Calcutta High Court in the case of Sujay Krishna Bhadra v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II has held that the co-accused statement under Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is not a substantive piece of evidence.
The bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh while granting bail to Sujay Krishna Bhadra Accused in Recruitment Scam the person accused in has observed that since the case primarily depends on documentary evidence which is in custody of the E.D, there is no scope for the petitioner to tamper with the same. With regard to the apprehension that the petitioner shall influence witnesses or may abscond if released on bail, stringent conditions may be imposed upon him to address the concern.
The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of medical condition. The petitioner is in custody for about one year and six months. The E.D. has relied upon 180 witnesses and 438 documents in the complaints and charge is yet to be framed. There is no possibility of commencement of trial in near future.
The petitioner is not a Government employee and has been implicated on the basis of statements of Tapas Kumar Mondal and Kuntal Ghosh recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, both of whom are co-accused. Their statements cannot be deemed to be substantive evidence for implicating the petitioner. The statement of Tapas Kumar Mondal reveals a nexus between Manik Bhattacharyya, Kuntal Ghosh and himself. Tapas Kumar Mondal has stated that Manik Bhattacharyya was close to the petitioner and the list of 325 ineligible candidates who sought appointment by shelling out huge money was sent to Manik Bhattacharyya through the petitioner. Manik Bhattacharyya being close to Tapas Kumar Mondal since 2011, it is absurd that the petitioner was a bridge between Manik Bhattacharyya and Tapas Kumar Mondal.
The E.D. has failed to establish the link between the generation of proceeds of crime and the bank accounts of the petitioner. The property at 3A, Fort Lee-II, Premises No. 24, Lee Road, Bhowanipore, Kolkata – 700 020 under provisional attachment was purchased by the daughter and son in law of the petitioner from M/s. Wealth Wizards Private Limited for consideration of Rs. 2.5 crores.
The amount was paid by them by borrowing rupees one crore from certain companies and closing down a fixed deposit account of Late. G.P. Chatterjee, the son in law’s uncle, since deceased, which was inherited by the son in law and withdrawing an amount of Rs. 1.5 crores therefrom.
The loan taken from the companies was repaid. Therefore the said money cannot be termed as proceeds of crime. There is also no allegation against G.P. Chatterjee, since deceased, or the companies granting loan to the son in law that they have been involved in the offence of money laundering or in generation of proceeds of crime in any manner.
The petitioner’s firm M/s. S.D. Consultancy obtained consultancy services from M/s. Leaps and bounds since his firm did not have adequate man power for installation of aluminium products for Bengal Merlin Projects in terms of a commercial contract entered into between the petitioner’s company and M/s. Bengal Merlin Housing Limited.Payment of Rs. 2, 32, 47, 552/- was made to the petitioner’s company by Bengal Merlin out of which the petitioners’ company paid Rs. 53,10,000/- to Leaps and Bounds in terms of work order dated 3rd January, 2020. The said money cannot qualify as proceeds of crime or tainted money.
The petitioner is in custody for a considerable period of time and his further detention is not required, moreso, since incriminating material has not transpired against him and the allegations are based solely upon the statement of the co-accused recorded under section 50 of the Act. The case is based on documentary evidence which is in custody of the E.D. There is no scope for the petitioner to tamper with the same.
The court noted that the petitioner is in custody for a considerable period of time. It is not in dispute that he was lastly interrogated by the E.D. about eleven months. Therefore it is evident that his further custodial interrogation is not required. The E.D. intends to rely upon voluminous evidence including 180 witnesses, and 438 documents. Charges are yet to be framed. Chance of conclusion of trial in the near future is bleak. The delay in trial is not wholly attributable to the petitioner.
The court released the petitioner on bail subject to furnishing bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with adequate sureties and stringent conditions keeping in mind his right to speedy trial under section 21 of the Constitution as well as his prolonged incarceration without trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Sujay Krishna Bhadra v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II
Case No.: CRM (SB) 227 of 2023 With CRAN 1 of 2024
Date: 06-12-2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Milon Mukherjee
Counsel For Respondent: Phiroze Edulji
