Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sujay Krishna Bhadra vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 December, 2025
Author: Suvra Ghosh
Bench: Suvra Ghosh
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APELLATE SIDE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH
Re: - CRAN 3 of 2025
In
CRM (DB) 201 of 2025
Sujay Krishna Bhadra
v/s.
Central Bureau of Investigation
For the Petitioner: Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anand Keshri, Adv.
Mr. Ayan Poddar, Adv.
For the CBI : Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Sr. Adv. Ld DSGI.
Mr. Amajit De, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Majumder, Adv.
Hearing concluded on: 28.11.2025
Judgment delivered on: 05.12.2025
SUVRA GHOSH, J. :-
1.The petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court on February 18, 2025 solely on medical and humanitarian grounds upon consideration of his medical condition subject to several conditions. The petitioner seeks confirmation of the interim bail and waiver of the conditions.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted as hereunder:-
3. The petitioner was not arraigned as an accused in the FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the CBI) on June 9, 2022. He was also not named as an accused in the ECIR 2 registered by the Enforcement Directorate (for short the E.D.) on June 24, 2022. The petitioner was asked to appear before the CBI on March 15, 2023 by a notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner complied with the said notice and cooperated in investigation. A further notice was issued upon him by the CBI on March 16, 2023 under Section 91 of the Code. The CBI conducted a raid at the residence of the petitioner on May 4, 2023 which led to seizure of cash, mobile phones and documents. Charge sheet submitted by the CBI under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 66 C of the I.T. Act on May 18, 2023 did not name the petitioner as one of the accused. On May 30, 2023 the petitioner was arrested and taken into custody by the E.D. The CBI filed its supplementary charge sheet on January 12, 2024 which did not name the petitioner. He was interrogated by the CBI in connection with the present case on April 27, 2024 when he was in judicial custody in connection with the PMLA case. Hearing of the bail petition of the petitioner in connection with the PMLA case was concluded on November 25, 2024 and judgment was reserved. On the same day, the CBI filed an application before the learned Special Court for issuance of production warrant against the petitioner which was accordingly issued on November 26, 2024. The CBI sought police custody of the petitioner and prayed for showing him as arrested. On December 17, 2024 the petitioner was virtually produced before the learned Special Court. His bail application was turned down and he was remanded to police custody. He was sent to judicial custody on December 21, 2024. Prayer of the CBI for recording of the voice sample of the petitioner was 3 allowed by the learned Special Court and his voice sample was recorded on February 11, 2025. The CBI filed its third supplementary charge sheet on February 21, 2025 wherein the petitioner was named as one of the accused.
4. The co-accused persons who were allegedly involved in tampering with OMR sheets and the list of qualified candidates to secure appointment of undeserving candidates have been granted bail. The alleged role of the petitioner is limited to collection and forwarding of the list of candidates. The petitioner therefore stands on a better footing than the co-accused who have been granted bail. The case is based on documentary evidence which have already been collected by the CBI since FIR was registered as early as on June 9, 2022. The charge sheet contains 192 documents and 200 witnesses to be examined and there is no likelihood of commencement or conclusion of trial in near future.
5. The finding of the E.D. in the prosecution complaint is not in conformity with the third supplementary charge sheet filed by the CBI. The E.D. has failed to prima facie establish any money trail linking the petitioner with the predicate offence, the E.D's case primarily being based on statement of co-accused persons. Though according to the CBI the petitioner and one Aurobindo Roy Barman stand on the same footing, he has not been arraigned as an accused. Only his statement has been used to implicate the petitioner. Although rupees fifteen lakhs in cash were recovered from the petitioner's residence, the said amount is significantly disproportionate to crores of rupees allegedly received by him as part of 4 the conspiracy. There is no evidence connecting the seized cash to the alleged offence.
6. The petitioner has not misused the interim bail granted to him. He has not been interrogated by the CBI after being released on interim bail. All the documents and statements relied upon by the CBI were collected prior to his arrest. The CBI has filed fourth supplementary charge sheet and it is not known when investigation shall be concluded. The petitioner is not at flight risk since he has deep roots in the society. He is also not in a position to tamper with the evidence which is already in custody of the CBI. Statements of witnesses have been recorded by the CBI during investigation and there is remote chance of the petitioner influencing the said witnesses. The petitioner seeks confirmation of the interim bail granted to him and waiver of the conditions imposed upon him.
7. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following authorities in support of his contention.
i. Arvind Kejriwal v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550;
ii. Judgment dated September 26, 2025 in CRM (M)
427 of 2025;
iii. Order dated November 10, 2025 in CRM (M) 1325 of
2025, &
iv. Judgment dated December 6, 2024 in CRM (SB)
227 of 2023.
8. Vehemently opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the E.D. has submitted that the petitioner is the master mind of the entire transaction 5 and does not stand on the same footing as the co-accused who have been granted bail. The co-accused acted on instruction of the petitioner who was the bridge between the candidates and other influential persons involved in the offence. The petitioner alongwith Kuntal Ghosh collected money from the aspiring candidates on assurance of jobs. The petitioner had access to all the other accused persons and orchestrated the entire scam. It is revealed during investigation that list of candidates was sent from the e-mail of Kuntal Ghosh to the e-mail of the petitioner and others who forwarded the same to the e-mail of Aurobindo Roy Barman and Dipak Biswas for compilation and updating of list of candidates which were finally handed over to the petitioner through Kuntal Ghosh for securing their appointments. The petitioner deleted his e-mail account including the e-mails received by him. A list of 157 non-qualified candidates of TET 2014 was sent by the petitioner out of whom 51 candidates were appointed as primary teachers. He also forwarded four e- mails containing list of 85 non-qualified candidates out of whom 10 were appointed. About rupees one crore was collected from the said 85 candidates on instruction of the petitioner. The petitioner is extremely influential and may influence witnesses if granted regular bail at this stage. While in custody, he consumed overdose of benzodiazepine which led to his unconsciousness, for the purpose of obtaining bail on medical grounds. Statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164/161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure demonstrates active involvement of the petitioner in the offence. The petitioner does not deserve a favourable order at this stage.
6
9. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authority in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v/s. CBI reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439 in support of his contention.
10. At the outset, it should be recorded that this Court granted interim bail to the petitioner on medical and humanitarian grounds. Pursuant to a direction of the Court for submission of status reports, the CBI submitted a report wherein it was stated that the petitioner consumed overdose of benzodiazepine for obtaining medical bail. This Court nevertheless chose to extend the interim bail from time to time. It is not alleged that the petitioner has misused the interim bail or has violated any of the conditions imposed upon him in granting interim bail.
11. On merits, this Court is inclined to place reliance on the authority in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has distinguished economic offences from other offences and has observed as follows:-
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable 7 possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."
12. It has prima facie transpired during investigation that the petitioner alongwith the other accused persons played an active role in appointing undeserving candidates as primary school teachers in lieu of consideration, thereby depriving the legible aspiring candidates of public employment. Statement of witnesses recorded in course of investigation prima facie suggests involvement of the petitioner alongwith other co- accused. Surprisingly, though prima facie involvement of Aurobindo Roy Burman and Dipak Biswas is evident from the investigation, they have been cited as witnesses in the third supplementary charge sheet which has named the petitioner as an accused. The audio contents of the conversation among the co-accused including the petitioner demonstrates that the entire exercise was conducted at the behest of co-accused Partha Chatterjee and Manik Bhattacharya who were at the helm of affairs at the relevant time and appear to have misused their position in committing the alleged offence. The conversation links the petitioner to the co-accused and prima facie demonstrates their involvement and connivance with each other. The petitioner appears to be similarly circumstanced with the co-accused, all of whom have been granted bail.
13. FIR was registered by the CBI on June 6, 2022. The petitioner was named in the third supplementary charge sheet filed by the CBI on February 21, 2025. The CBI sought issuance of production warrant against the petitioner before the learned Special Court on November 25, 2024 the 8 date on which the hearing of the bail petition filed by the petitioner in the PMLA case was concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment. Before such time, the CBI did not find it necessary to implicate the petitioner in the alleged offence despite statements of witnesses recorded and evidence collected prior thereto. Also, the petitioner has not been interrogated by the CBI after he was granted interim bail. The petitioner was not shown as an accused even in the second supplementary charge sheet which was filed on December 27, 2024. He was named only in the third supplementary charge sheet filed on February 21, 2025. The CBI did not require the arrest of the petitioner till his bail prayer was heard by this Court and reserved for judgment.
14. The allegations against the petitioner in the present matter and the PMLA case largely overlap each other. Though they are two independent proceedings, the role attributed to the petitioner in both the cases is materially the same. The petitioner has been granted bail in the PMLA case on almost same set of allegations under the more stringent provisions of the PMLA. Therefore in the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), it would be a travesty of justice to keep the petitioner in further detention in the CBI case.
15. The case is based on documentary evidence which is in custody of the investigating agency or the Court. Most of the documents and a good number of witnesses in both the cases are common. Therefore there is remote chance of the petitioner interfering with the investigation of the case or influencing/intimidating witnesses.
9
16. The petitioner is on interim bail since February 18, 2025 and has not misused the liberty, nor violated any of the conditions of bail imposed upon him. He is similarly circumstanced with the co-accused who are on bail. Provision for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been kept open in the third supplementary charge sheet filed by the CBI. Investigation has been continuing for more than three years and there is little likelihood of commencement of trial in near future.
17. In the said backdrop, this Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner deserves confirmation of the interim bail granted in his favour.
18. Accordingly, the interim bail granted on February 18, 2025 which was extended from time to time, is confirmed.
19. The bail conditions imposed vide order dated February 18, 2025 shall be replaced by the following conditions:-
i. The petitioner shall surrender his passport with the learned trial Court at once;
ii. He shall not leave the city of Kolkata without leave of the trial Court;
iii. He shall appear before the learned trial Court on every date of hearing fixed by the learned Court;
iv. He shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses in any manner whatsoever;
v. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with the witnesses; 10 vi. He shall provide his mobile phone number(s) before the learned trial Court and the investigating agency and shall not change the same without prior intimation to them; vii. He shall meet the investigating officer once a week until further orders and cooperate in investigation.
20. In the event the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions stated above, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.
21. It is made clear that the observation made in this judgment is for the limited purpose for deciding the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned trial Court shall deal with the matter independently in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation which may have been made in this judgment.
22. CRM (DB) 201 of 2025 is allowed.
23. The connected application being CRAN 3 of 2025 is also allowed.
24. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court
25. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.
(Suvra Ghosh, J)