Calcutta HC Confirms Bail on SSC Scam, Cites Discrepancies in CBI/ED Case [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court, in an order delivered, has confirmed the interim bail previously granted to Sujay Krishna Bhadra, an accused in a multi-crore teacher recruitment(SSC) scam being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

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 the investigation. A further notice was issued to 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.

Complete Blueprint for Preparing Project Reports, click here

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.

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 the conspiracy. There is no evidence connecting the seized cash to the alleged offence.

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.

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 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.

It was also observed that other individuals, whose alleged involvement appears to be on par with the petitioner's, have been cited as witnesses rather than accused.

The Court further held that the petitioner stands on a similar footing to several co-accused who have already been granted bail. The CBI's delay in naming him as an accused only in the third supplementary charge sheet filed over two and a half years after the FIR along with the unlikelihood of the trial commencing in the near future, weighed in his favor.

The bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh also took into account that the petitioner has already been granted bail in a related PMLA case based on similar allegations, and citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI, stated that it would be a "travesty of justice" to keep him in further detention.

Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail, replacing the previous conditions with a new set, including surrendering his passport, not leaving Kolkata without permission, and cooperating with the investigation.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates