Introduction:
In the case of Partha Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CRM (M) 427 of 2025), the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Suvra Ghosh, addressed one of the most high-profile legal proceedings emerging from the alleged multi-crore recruitment scam in West Bengal. The petitioner, Partha Chatterjee, a seasoned political leader and former Education Minister of West Bengal who had served in various ministerial capacities since 2011 and had been a member of the Legislative Assembly since 2001, sought bail in a criminal case registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The allegations pertained to large-scale corruption in the recruitment of primary school teachers in West Bengal, where ineligible candidates were allegedly appointed in exchange for extraneous considerations.
The case had gained significant public and political attention, not only because of the quantum of alleged corruption but also due to the stature of the petitioner. Following an FIR against unknown office bearers of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education under IPC provisions and the Prevention of Corruption Act, investigations by both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) unfolded, linking Chatterjee to the scam. While the ED had earlier arrested him in July 2022 under allegations of money laundering arising out of the same transactions, the Supreme Court of India granted him bail in December 2024, taking note of his prolonged detention and medical condition. In the present proceedings, the petitioner was shown as arrested by the CBI on October 1, 2024, after the filing of a supplementary charge sheet naming him as an accused in the scam. His continued detention since then became the subject of scrutiny before the High Court.
Submissions by the Petitioner:
The counsel appearing for Partha Chatterjee submitted that the entire case rested on documentary evidence, all of which was already in the custody of the CBI and before the trial court. There was, therefore, no scope for the petitioner to tamper with evidence. The same documents were also part of the ED’s case, in which the petitioner had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court in December 2024, after over two years in custody. It was argued that the principle of parity required the petitioner to be granted bail as his co-accused, Manik Bhattacharya, alleged to have been the prime mover of the scam, had already been released on bail by the High Court.
The petitioner’s counsel further contended that Chatterjee had already been in custody for more than a year in the CBI case without substantial progress in trial or even the likelihood of its early commencement. They highlighted that the CBI had not interrogated him since October 15, 2024, and there was no pressing necessity for his further incarceration. Stress was also laid on his health condition, citing ailments that required medical attention, and the fact that he no longer held the office of Education Minister, reducing the risk of influencing witnesses or obstructing justice.
The counsel concluded that continued detention of an undertrial in the absence of trial progress amounted to punitive detention, which was impermissible in law. The protection of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution required that he be granted bail subject to conditions ensuring his cooperation with the investigation and trial.
Submissions by the CBI:
The CBI, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the bail plea. It argued that the petitioner, in criminal conspiracy with co-accused Manik Bhattacharya and others, had facilitated the appointment of 310 out of 752 candidates as primary school teachers without holding any interview process. These appointments, it was submitted, were made in exchange for monetary and extraneous considerations, undermining the sanctity of public employment and depriving deserving candidates of their rightful opportunities.
The agency asserted that call detail records and transcriptions established a direct nexus between the petitioner and the fraudulent appointments, showing his active role in perpetuating the scam. The gravity of the allegations, involving systemic corruption at the highest levels of governance, was underscored as a reason to deny bail. The CBI also argued that further investigation was ongoing, and releasing such a high-profile accused could impede the process.
The prosecution highlighted the wider public interest, stating that corruption in recruitment scams affects not just individual victims but erodes the credibility of the education system and damages society at large. While acknowledging that Manik Bhattacharya had been granted bail, the CBI maintained that the petitioner’s role as a former minister was distinct and carried greater responsibility. Therefore, parity alone should not justify bail.
Court’s Analysis and Findings:
Justice Suvra Ghosh carefully weighed the rival submissions, beginning with the recognition that allegations against the petitioner were indeed extremely grave and involved large-scale corruption in public employment. The Court noted that the actions of the petitioner and other accused had prima facie deprived eligible candidates of their rightful appointments, thereby undermining both fairness and integrity in the education sector.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged the settled principle of law that incarceration of an undertrial should not transform into punitive detention. Bail jurisprudence, especially in corruption cases, required balancing the gravity of allegations with the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had already been in custody for over a year in the present case and had been granted bail in the parallel ED case by the Supreme Court. Importantly, there had been no interrogation of the petitioner since October 2024, which indicated that his further custody was not necessary for investigation purposes.
The Court also attached weight to the fact that co-accused Manik Bhattacharya, described as the key conspirator, had already been granted bail. Applying the principle of parity, Justice Ghosh observed that denying bail to the petitioner when the co-accused was out on bail would be inconsistent. Furthermore, the Court considered that the petitioner was no longer in office, had responded to summons issued by investigating agencies, and was suffering from ailments that required medical attention.
On the prosecution’s contention about the gravity of the offence, the Court observed that while the seriousness of the allegations was undeniable, bail could not be refused solely on the basis of severity if other factors weighed in favor of release. The guiding principle was whether continued custody was justified for investigation, trial, or risk of absconding, none of which appeared compelling in the present case.
Judgment:
The Calcutta High Court, balancing the gravity of allegations with the constitutional mandate of liberty, held that further detention of Partha Chatterjee was not justified. The Court explicitly stated: “The petitioner is in custody for more than a year. He has been granted bail in the E.D. case. He has not been interrogated by the investigating agency after 15th October, 2024. He is similarly circumstanced with co-accused Manik Bhattacharya who is on bail. Investigation is still continuing. There is little possibility of commencement/conclusion of trial in near future. It is trite law that incarceration of an under-trial should not amount to punitive detention… this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not justified and he may be released on bail subject to stringent conditions.”
Accordingly, the Court granted bail to Partha Chatterjee, imposing stringent conditions to ensure his availability during trial and prevent any misuse of liberty. By doing so, the Court reaffirmed its adherence to the principle that liberty of an undertrial cannot be curtailed indefinitely in the name of ongoing investigation, particularly where parity with co-accused and lack of necessity for further custodial interrogation were established.
This decision underscores the judiciary’s delicate role in corruption-related cases: while recognizing the societal harm caused by such offences, courts must still ensure that bail jurisprudence remains anchored in constitutional principles rather than punitive instincts.