Illegal Appointment in Govt. Schools: Calcutta HC Allows Release of Accused in Absence of Arrest Under PMLA [Read Order]

Even though the petitioner was interrogated and his statement was recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, the petitioner was not arrested in the course of the investigation under Section 19 of the Act; therefore, the special Court ought to have released him in terms of Section 91 of the BNSS.

Dr. Kalyanmoy Ganguly, the petitioner is a septuagenarian suffering from various ailments. He retired from the post of the President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education on 24th June, 2022. He has been arraigned as an accused. He is on bail in the predicate offence. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused persons is involved in a conspiracy to issue recommendations/appointment letters to unsuccessful candidates for filling up vacancies in Group-C and D posts in various schools of the State.

It is also alleged that he has issued such appointment letters on illegal recommendations received from one Shanti Prasad Sinha and instructed his sub-ordinate Rajesh Layek to issue the appointment letters. He has been actively involved in generation and acquisition of proceeds of crime and projecting them as untainted property.

Step by Step Guide of Preparing Company Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account Click Here

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in the course of investigation, the petitioner was interrogated and his statement recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA) at Presidency Correctional Home on 16th January, 2025. He was not arrested in connection with the case, nor shown as arrested during the period of investigation.

The prosecution complaint was filed by the Enforcement Directorate ( the E.D.) on 22nd January, 2025 against the petitioner and others. He was physically produced before the learned Special Court on 7th March, 2025 and prayed for bail. His prayer was turned down in view of Section 45 of the PMLA.

On merits, counsel has submitted that the petitioner has stated in his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA that at the relevant time, appointment letters were issued after receiving recommendations from WBCSSC and the technical officer Rajesh Layek, appointed on a contractual basis, was responsible for printing the appointment letters.

Rs. 704 Crores GST Fraud: Rajasthan HC refuses to Grant Bail to Accused Noting Custody Escape Attempt [Read Order]

The petitioner has prayed for his release in terms of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by quashing the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. Vehemently opposing the prayer, counsel for the E.D. has submitted that the petitioner was actively involved in the alleged offence and has fraudulently executed issuance of fake appointment letters in favour of unsuccessful candidates in respect of Group-C and D posts in various schools under the Government of West Bengal. Since the petitioner was already in custody in connection with other cases and there was no threat perception or flight risk of the petitioner, his arrest in the present case was not required.

The petitioner filed a bail application before the Special Court which was dealt with by the Court in its proper perspective keeping in mind the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA. The authority does not mandate grant of bail to the petitioner. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, further investigation of the case may be jeopardized and there is ample possibility of the petitioner attempting to influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

Since the petitioner was in custody in connection with another case, he was produced before the Special Judge on 7th March, 2025. The petitioner filed a bail petition before the Special Judge and sought release in terms of the dictum in Tarsem Lal.

The bail prayer was dealt with by the court on merits and turned down. The court has misdirected itself in applying the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA in rejecting the bail prayer when no such application was required to be filed at all. It is trite law that the E.D. cannot invoke section 19 of the Act when the accused appears before the Special Court in response to process issued against him.

Since the petitioner was not arrested in the course of investigation under Section 19 of the Act, the special Court ought to have released him in terms of Section 91 of the BNSS and not turned down his bail application on merits. Evidently the E.D. has not filed any application before the Special Court seeking custody of the petitioner for conducting further investigation of the case.

A single bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh held that the petitioner ought to be released forthwith upon execution of bond under Section 91 of the BNSS. The order passed by the chief judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta on 7th March, 2025, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is set aside/quashed. The petitioner be released upon furnishing bond under Section 91 of the BNSS.

3000 Illustrations, Case Studies & Examples for Ind-AS & IFRS, Click Here

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