Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

affidavit in reply thereto was filed by the petitioner on 24.09.2025, which were taken on record. On 27.11.2025, this Court had raised certain queries/issues. It is submitted that no accused arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in the present proceedings has been granted bail to date. Enforcement Directorate has arrested 3 persons namely Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy, Shri Santi Prasad Sinha and Shri Jiban Krishna Saha. None of the accused mentioned have been granted bail till date by the Special Court, PMLA. Further, the total number of accused in this case are 109 out of which 90 are juridical entities related to Prasanna Kumar Roy. There was no scope of arrest of Juridical entities. Further, the remaining individuals were not arrested for various reasons some of them like Shri Ashok Kumar Saha and Shri Kalyanmoy Ganguly were already under Judicial Custody in the CBI Case and the requirements for custodial interrogation was not felt in peculiar facts and circumstances. Some accused persons like Shri Samarjit Acharya were found to be assisting in the processes. Further, the remaining accused have been granted bail in consonance with Section 88 of CrPC following the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarsem Lal (2024 INSC 434 in Criminal Appeal No.2608 of 2024 dated 16.05.2024). It is worth noting that Prosecution complaint of ED was filed on 18.04.2024 and the Tarsem Lal Judgment was pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme court on 16.05.2024. Post the pronouncement of Judgement, there was no scope of arrest of the arraigned accused persons. Santi Prasad Sinha was one of the main conspirator of this recruitment scam as he was the convenor of the Special five member committee formulated to expedite various recruitment processes conducted by WBCSSC. Shri SP Sinha enjoyed the power of the chairman of WBCSSC as he was a close associate of the then MIC Shri Partha Chatterjee; and SP Sinha used to control every aspect of the recruitment process and also used to get the list of candidates recommended by the MIC through Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy, who used to visit SP Sinha regularly even in the office of WBCSSC. Furthermore, SP Sinha used to increase or decrease the vacancy as per need and used to instruct Shri Kalyanmoy Ganguly, the then President of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) to give the appointment letters against the recommendation letters provided by the WBCSSC. Initially Shri SP Sinha used to give instructions verbally to his subordinates, but since 2019 SP Sinha started giving instructions through the mail via a man named Pradip Singh @ Chhotu who used to work for Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy; the main middleman who used to collect money from the candidates directly/indirectly and distribute the same to various officials and Pradeep Singh, the employee of Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy, used to send details of candidates through mail and Whatsapp and accordingly recommendation letters of the said candidates were issued based on which appointment letters were issued by WBBSE. During his statement recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, SP Sinha stated that he knew Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy by his other name i.e., Rakesh and he met him first time when he was Secretary in WBBSE in the year 2011. Further, SP Sinha was a close associate of the then MIC Shri Partha Chatterjee he was the main person involved in issuance of recommendation letters of the undeserving candidates based on which appointment letters were issued by WBBSE and subsequently undeserving candidates were appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers. The fraudulent scheme had been initiated from the very outset, when a five-member Special Committee was constituted and he was inexplicably appointed as its Convenor. His appointment was made without any prior interview, selection process, or adherence to established procedural formalities. It is evident that he was placed in this position solely at the discretion of the then MIC, with the mala fide intention of facilitating the commission of fraud. He was one of the starting points from where the fraud started. He was the topmost boss of the said organisation and fraud would not have been possible without him. Furthermore, there exist numerous documented instances in which recommendation letters were issued to candidates who were clearly undeserving, despite the fact that these individuals neither appeared for nor qualified in the OMR-based written examination, the first phase of the selection process. These actions represent a blatant circumvention of the established rules. Importantly, the issuance of all such recommendation letters was done on his instructions, indicating a deliberate manipulation of the selection mechanism. This pattern of conduct not only undermined the integrity of the recruitment process but also facilitated the inclusion of unqualified candidates in subsequent phases, thereby compromising the credibility and fairness of the entire selection procedure. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has vide its judgement dated 03.04.2025 in SLP (Civil) No. 9586 of 2024 in the matter of State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and others cancelled the appointments of more than 25,000 candidates as teachers and staff recruited by West Bengal SSC due to irregularities found in the recruitment process citing remarks that the manipulations, frauds and subsequent cover-up were on a large scale, such that the credibility and legitimacy of the selection process were "denuded." and this scale and depth of irregularity meant that "the entire selection process has been vitiated and tainted beyond resolution." During his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, SP Sinha himself stated that he knew Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy by his other name i.e., Rakesh and he met him first time when he was Secretary in WBBSE in the year 2011. Furthermore, SP Sinha also stated that he had purchased land parcels from Shri Amit Mondal registered in his name and in the name of his wife Smt. Debasri Sinha and the funds were sourced from his personal savings and the payments were done through banking channels for the said purchase of land parcels. Upon enquiry of cash deposits done in the said bank accounts maintained in his name and in the name of his wife he falsely claimed it to be sourced from agricultural income, however upon enquiry he did not show the said income in his Income Tax Returns. Furthermore, statement of Shri Amit Mondal @ Amit Kumar Mondal was recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, wherein it is revealed that he sold land parcels vide two deeds to Shri Santi Prasad Sinha; and he had received consideration amount mostly in cash and rest of the amount through banking channels. It is further submitted that he had also acquired benami property in the name of Ms. Aparupa Mitra. In this view statement of Ms. Aparupa Mitra was recorded under section 50 of PMLA, wherein it is revealed that she is close friend of Mrs. Debasri Sinha, who is wife of Santi Prasad Sinha and in the year 2019, Shri S.P. Sinha bought a flat apartment in her name and had paid her Rs. 23 Lakhs in cash and asked her to deposit in her account to purchase the same; that an advance payment of Rs. 1 Lakhs was already paid by Shri SP Sinha to the seller; that she was further given Rs. 3.20 lakhs in cash which were utilized towards paying stamp duty, registration charges, etc; although the said flat is in her name, the real owner is Shri S.P. Sinha. She also stated that the CBI authorities had seized cash amount of Rs. 50 lakhs from the said flat which belongs to Shri S.P. Sinha. Furthermore. Statement of Md. Meezanuddin was recorded under section 50 of the PMLA. wherein it is revealed that he was/is partner with Mrs. Debasri Sinha in a beauty Parlour/Saloon and works as hairdresser; that he started running a salon in partnership with Mrs. Debasri Sinha in her flat and during the same period, Mrs. Debasri Sinha gave him a locked bag to keep it; that during the search proceedings by CBI, they seized the said bag which contained jewelleries worth Rs. 60 lakhs Upon asking about the jewellery and cash seized by CBI authorities from his associates Md. Meezanuddin and Aparupa Mitra, SP Sinha denied having any knowledge of cash kept with Aparupa Mitra whereas he claimed the jewellery to be purchased from his personal savings however, he couldn't produce any documentary evidence for the same. Furthermore, the proceeds of crime acquired by SP Sinha in the form of land parcels and flat were attached by ED vide PAO No. 06/2024 dated 10.04.2024, and the same was confirmed by learned Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 18.09.2024. Under PMLA, 2002 there was no specific provision for requesting sanction of Public servants akin to Prevention of Corruption Act. PMLA, being a special statute does not require sanction, as Section 71 of PMLA, 2002 gives an overriding effect. Furthermore, prosecution complaint in the instant matter was filed on 18.04.2024. However, on 06.11.2024 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4314-4316 of 2024 in the case of ED vs. Bibhu Prasad Acharya and Others held that Section 197(1) of the CrPC is applicable to a prosecution complaint filed under Section 44(1) (b) of PMLA. In view of the said judgement, out of abundant caution, without prejudice to the fact that even though sanction may have been obtained in the scheduled offence by Central Bureau of Investigation which is broad enough to subsume the PMLA proceedings, a fresh sanction is sought from the competent authority for prosecuting the public servant (s) for the commission of offence of money laundering. Santi Prasad Sinha was the main conspirator of this recruitment scam as he was the convenor of the Special five member committee formulated to expedite various recruitment processes conducted by WBCSSC. Shri SP Sinha enjoyed the power of the chairman of WBCSSC as he was a close associate of the then MIC Shri Partha Chatterjee; and SP Sinha used to control every aspect of the recruitment process and also used to get the list of candidates recommended by the MIC through Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy, who used to visit SP Sinha regularly even in the office of WBCSSC. Furthermore, SP Sinha used to increase or decrease the vacancy as per his discretion and used to instruct Shri Kalyanmoy Ganguly, the then President of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) to give the appointment letters against the recommendation letters provided by the WBCSSC. Initially, Shri SP Sinha gave instructions verbally to his subordinates, but from 2019 he began giving instructions through e-mail via Pradip Singh @ Chhotu, an employee of Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy. Prasanna Kumar Roy acted as the main middleman who collected money from candidates directly or indirectly and distributed it to various officials. Pradip Singh sent candidate details through e-mail and WhatsApp. Based on these details, recommendation letters were issued, on the strength of which appointment letters were issued by WBBSE. SP Sinha exercised his influence on WBSSC and WBSSE officials while he was on power. The ED prosecution complaint also relies on statements of various individuals amongst other evidence, who have given testimonies against SP Sinha and other influential persons. Given his clout and influence, there is a highly likely chance that he will influence the witnesses which have helped ED in unearthing his properties and admitted the cash transactions. SP Sinha has been arraigned an accused in various cases of CBI and ED. The major allegations against him are that he has given forged recommendation letters, thus it will not be wrong to state that he may create records which are advantageous in trial for him and other accused. Under PMLA, 2002 there was no specific provision for requesting sanction of Public servants akin to Prevention of Corruption Act. PMLA, being a special statute does not require sanction, as Section 71 of PMLA, 2002 gives an overriding effect. Furthermore, Prosecution complaint in the instant matter was filed on 18.04.2024. However, on 06.11.2024 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4314-4316 of 2024 in the case of ED vs. Bibhu Prasad Acharya and Others held that Section 197(1) of the CrPC is applicable to a prosecution complaint filed under Section 44(1) (b) of PMLA. In view of the said judgement, out of abundant caution, without prejudice to the fact that even though sanction may have been obtained in the scheduled offence by Central Bureau of Investigation which is broad enough to subsume the PMLA proceedings, a fresh sanction is sought from the competent authority for prosecuting the public servant (s) for the commission of offence of money laundering. It can be seen from the above paras that SP Sinha was not co- operating with the investigation and he was evasive in his answers during his statements. Thus, his further interrogation under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 would not have yielded any positive investigative leads. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Mohd. Enamul Haque v. Directorate of Enforcement, Bail Application 1869/2022, Crl. M. (Bail) 421/2024, Crl. M.A. 18435/2023 and 5877/2024, decided on 29.07.2024 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; ii) Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2023, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; iii) Union of India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad, Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 7140 of 2024, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; iv) Gautam Kundu v. Manoj Kumar and Ors., decided on 16.12.2015 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, MANU/SC/1453/2015. Upon inquiry, learned Counsel has submitted that the former Minister was not yet made an accused in this case, but he was still under the scanner. On 24.02.2026, it was submitted on behalf of the ED that the said Minister would be added as an accused in the instant PML Act case by 31.03.2026.